shaman sun

Sun of Truth

2009-11-12T15:45:00.004-05:00

"It is evident and manifest unto every discerning observer that even as the light of the star fadeth before the effulgent splendour of the sun, so doth the luminary of earthly knowledge, of wisdom, and understanding vanish into nothingness when brought face to face with the resplendent glories of the Sun of Truth, the Day-star of divine enlightenment." -Baha'u'llah

Sounds very Zen! Thought I'd share this on the birthday of Baha'u'llah, founder and prophet of the Bahai Faith.

What Meditation Does to Your Brain

2008-10-09T18:22:00.001-04:00

Following up on the previous blog about meditation, I've been digging around for some interesting links on how meditative states correlate with brain waves. Here's a basic rundown on how:

(Graph from crystalinks)

The brain itself emits electromagnetic energy, and this brain activity differs according to its state (sleeping, awake, thinking etc). There is a growing amount of data about these brain states, specifically on how the act of meditation influences them. According to this chart, beta waves coincide with thinking/working/ activities, while on the other side of the spectrum there is delta, which indicates deep and dreaming/dreamless sleep. Meditation is often found with alpha/theta waves. I'd be curious to know where mindfulness meditation fits in this spectrum.

There are various sound waves that induce or help promote a particular brain state. Ever hear of the brainwave generator? It's been around for a few years now (at least). You can download the program, free and try it out. It has a very extensive list of different sounds which allegedly help for a number of tasks, from meditating to headaches. What are your thoughts on it? From giving it a shot, I admit it did induce something. I've tried it to help write papers, but I've found myself having to make an active effort to first clear out all other sounds, sit back and take it in. There does seem to be some kind of effect, for sure. I'm just not sure how extensive it is.

Next up on the list is Holosync. This project is by far a more extensive one. I haven't purchased the program, but there seems to be alot of positive hype about it. What I did manage to get is a demo CD. It did seem to have some effect, but not as strong as the Brainwave generator. This could have been because the Holosync CD had the president speaking for a good majority of the demo, while the sound waves played underneath. I found it to be a bit distracting.

Without making this too patchy, I think I'll end it here, and in the next blog (part 2) I'll dive into a related topic: the science behind meditation. There are a handful of really interesting experiments and debates over meditation and the brain. Stay tuned!

10 Tips for Effective Meditation

2008-10-03T02:49:00.002-04:00

1. Daily Practice. Meditation doesn't necessarily mean taking a few hours out of your day. In fact, morning and evening meditation can fit easier into your schedule. Try simple breathing exercises after you lie down to fall asleep. When you wake up, spend a few minutes with the same breathing exercises. A regular mindfulness practice will gradually spill over to your every-day life. You'll notice yourself going back into that "flowing" state during the day.
2. Mindfulness. Whether or not you have more time, mindfulness can be applied throughout the day. Simply notice things, pay attention to your breathing while you walk. Notice simple and subtle bodily aspects-- emotional and physical reactions. Simply notice your thoughts as they arise. Watch the world arise and fall as you move through it. Once again, a daily practice is the most important for effectiveness.
3. Follow the breath. Inhale through your nose, feel the air fill your lungs, feel the air leave. Beginners are encouraged to count 1-10 to help keep the pace. Once you are comfortable, quietly follow the breath. This is tricky to do at first, but it is the foundation of meditation. Gradually it will become more natural for you. When you first start, don't worry about the thoughts that pop up. Just keep following the breath. When you lose count, or get distracted, quietly pause and then begin the count again.
4. Read. Digging into a good book may stimulate your thoughts, but it also may stimulate meditative states. Reading Tao te Ching, Krishnamurti or even Eckhart Tolle can help trigger you into reflective, mindful states. Reading blogs, links and anything on the internet is good for stimulating your mind and encourage self reflection.
5. Exercise. Physical meditation, you could call it. Mindfulness during physical exertion is sometimes one of the most effective ways to meditate. It lets you both be physically healthy and more aware of your body in motion. Meditation is not just about "sitting still" - that is, not just literally. It's also finding the still point while in motion.
6. If you're feeling negative emotions-- good! Or, in other words, when anxiety, anger, fear, etc. pop up during your practice, it means you are peeling off the layers and noticing things that have been brushed aside. When these feelings do arise, don't try to fix them. Just be with them, notice them and observe them. Just like you are doing with your body. This simple acceptance of their presence is sometimes the most important thing you could do for your mental and emotional well being.
7. Don't push yourself! No, really. One of the most difficult things many beginners and long time meditators experience is frustration. How can you "stop" yourself from thinking? Well, the trick is it can't be forced. If you are having trouble focusing, just notice that. If your thoughts wander, do your best to accept that and simply observe them as they stray. Once again, this bare attention is vital to a fruitful meditation practice.
8. Practice Compassion. For those of you who would like to try a more hands-on, creative approach to meditation. This form of meditation is compassion practice. Start by following the breath. After a minute or two, begin to imagine the world. Start with loved ones, and then go out to greater and greater points of view. Imagine any sickness, physical or emotional pain. As you breathe in, inhale that pain. If it helps, conceive of that pain as dark tar or black smoke. When exhaling, imagine letting that pain and sickness go into an infinite, unconditional love. You can imagine that love as an infinite blue sky or white light. Do this for 10-15 minutes a day. The results may be surprising!
9. Eat right. A healthy diet can make all the difference for your mental health. It helps attentiveness, awareness and general mental/physical strength. Not to mention-- sleep right too!
10. Music and environment helps. The right ambient (or any music, mind you) sounds can help stimulate mindfulness. Also, the right environment can help you too. A quiet day with the window open, spring or even winter air can help you induce a state of meditation. Music, it almost goes without saying, is an extremely potent tool. Don't be ashamed to try meditation CD's either!

That's it for now. Stay tuned for a follow up blog on meditation, brain waves, and Holosync.

Thoughts on the Bailout, a Clue from Duck Tales

2008-10-02T18:56:00.005-04:00

I'm sure everyone has been following this. This is a post from Reddit: a video of Duck Tales teaching kids the laws of economics-- borrowing too much loses value! It's stunning, and almost prophetic how this video could serve as a reminder and an informer for everyone, especially those responsible for creating the bailout. To me, it really seems like it's just delaying the inevitable. Patchwork on a breaking car. Do we really think that adding more debt to save us from debt works? I swear, I may be young, but how is it that leaders of multi national corporations can't seem to get this right?

This is where it gets cloudy, but it sounds like it's a matter of policy. The philosophy of "trickle down" doesn't work. I think this is partially to do with our nature. People are greedy. They keep the money. Some things are complex only because we dodge the reality of things. Is there a way to change our policy? Can there be a system that takes human nature into better account?

Following up on that, here's a graphical representation of US debt over the past 10 years.

What does integral look like?

2008-09-29T14:01:00.002-04:00

(Cross-post from the Integral pod on Gaia)

This is a thought that's been cooking for a while: how will integral naturally emerge, and will it look like the way Wilber has described it?

I might be wrong, but from reading wilber, I get the impression one of the main characteristics of integral is vertical thinking, developmental awareness. deeper levels of understanding. I do think this is an important characteristic, but what people seem to be witnessing is a deeper, complex way of thinking, yet seen as a horizontal complexity. It's still development, but not quite “linear” as it used to be.

Or in other words, the heirarchy, the classical “beaurocratic” levels are breaking down for a networking society.

So we're seeing the rise of the “network” instead of the “institution.” there are alot of thinkers along these lines, and to me this seems like where civilization is headed. i think this fits perfectly into integral, without needing to structure in levels just yet. it can fit into the maps, for sure, but common understanding of 'vertical' development is something that doesn't need to happen first. instead, we are re-thinking and seeing the relationship and organization in a totally new, complex structure.

We're seeing a breakdown of classical institutions, the information age has created collaborative efforts, open source organizations— and the internet is the best place to see new structures of society emerging.

So, what does integral look like, without the language, without the theory? or in other words, what does it look like without the map?

Networks, organic patterns, collaborations and decentralized organization.

I think Wilber, and many other integral theorists have correctly criticized “flatland,” and postmodernism for simply accepting the break down of heirarchy, centralized ways of thinking as the end-all, be-all. The story doesn't stop there. But instead of immediately creating vertical maps, it seems that it is naturally happening by first seeing organic patterns in the chaos. people are structuring naturally, organizing and networking. this way, underlying themes begin to be seen… and yes, maybe eventually we will have a deeper vertical awareness. for the moment, the depth comes from understanding the space between perspectives, but we're in the midst of creating the map. relationship and flex-flow will become prominent– and this is resonant with spiral dynamics, the 2nd tier “integral” value memes. If Wilber, and many of the integral theorists are correct, we will see maps arise naturally, and the “integral” attitude arising naturally in many creative ways.

If you want to see where it's headed, I think some great thinkers who are not associated with the integral theorists, per say, are clay shirky, who has an excellent ted talk here: Institution vs Collaboration

Another thinker is Manuel Castells– a sociologist who is strongly for moving beyond postmodernism, and wrote a book called “The Rise of the Network Society,” as well as “1000 Years of Non-Linear History.”

Do you know of any others? i'm not sure this is all coherent, but what i'm trying to get at is that we're seeing “integral” pop up organically, and sometimes the language of these theories can get in the way from seeing the seeds grow right under our feet.

Reading List!

2008-09-29T01:33:00.007-04:00

Just picked up this book,

Commentaries on Living, First Series.

It's an excellent book, and very memorable for me. I used to read it on bus rides in high school. Good old days! Does that make me seem old? Here are a few other books I've picked up lately. Book reviews to come shortly...

And secondly, this great book. Another classic,

No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth

I've read this one in the past, and it's great-- way before Wilber got a little heavy with the metaphysics. When does meaning become lost in the very language that is supposed to convey it? I think this is an important question, especially for the philosopher, the scientist, and the spiritualist. Sometimes, the simpler way is the most effective. What are your thoughts?

And finally, Eckhart Tolle: A New Earth. This book has been a popular one in the mainstream, and so far it seems to be eloquently simple, yet descriptive enough to reach some deep issues. I know some people are calling Tolle just another fake, someone cashing in on feel-goodness and such. I cannot say the same. His writing is on-par with alot of spiritual and philosophical thinkers, including the afformentioned Krishnamurti. In a sense, he is able to simplify complex meaning to common day language, and disseminate it to the majority of the population. So much so, he's got this show on Oprah's website. I can't say this does more harm than good. If anything, it at least gets people reflecting. That's something these days, no?

Ethics, Society and the New Tomorrow

2008-09-28T22:42:00.005-04:00

As we spiral deeper and deeper into the information age, the singularity appears to draw near. We can get vast amounts of information at the push of a button—In fact, if we wanted to, we could download vast libraries of books, media and other forms of both entertainment and education. The internet, above all new advancements in technology, has created a decentralized culture of vibrant networks, oscillating and thriving, constantly shifting and flowing through the minds of its users. We have created a massive brain, in a sense, of knowledge and entertainment, culture and science. That, and literally anything else you could think of. In doing so, the internet as inadvertently shaped the mindset of the next generation (X, Y and so forth)—one that does not necessarily buy into the centralized, bureaucratic system we currently have in place. People are thinking differently. The rise of “open source” and collaboration have not only created breathing online societies, but also active groups in the real world. Networking websites (Meetup.com, for instance) have helped get people to do things and come together. In short, this is what Manuel Delanda has described as, “The Rise of Network Societies.” Its key traits are: decentralized power, network structure and collaboration.

As the old ways of doing things face the new way, we will see, and have seen some major shifts in power. The internet community, for example, has permanently crippled the media industry. The use of file sharing spreads like wildfire, and the hierarchical business structures attempting to combat it continue to lose legal battle after legal battle in the world. Attempts by lobbyists to limit the internet into “packages” like cable, or satellite T.V. have received fierce threats by Google, who, threatened in turn to broadcast the internet free from its orbiting satellites. These are only a few of the examples, and each is giving a powerful example of the network society. If communities and businesses continue to organize in this way, what can we expect? For starters, greater collaboration, integration of technology and activism. There will be institutions, but their purpose will be to simply keep the network growing, thriving. Those who can “hyper link” will be the greatest in standing. The most dynamic, adaptable will begin to win out in competition. Big business, though still existent, will be melted into vast frameworks of smaller business, all needing each other to co-exist, all of them co-dependent. Imagine, if you will, a brain. It is nearly infinitely complex, networked, yet still existing within it are general faculties with specific purposes. If all of this is abstract to you, you’re not alone. We can only imagine and speculate at this point, but speculation can certainly help us see what is happening now. We can ask ourselves—what are the important patterns now? And how are they going to be beneficial?

For starters, a network is by far more adaptable to challenges in its very structure. It has the whole of a community ready and willing to face a problem, and not simply one bureaucratic pyramid. If societies evolve, then this structure is the latest and the greatest in adaptation.
How will this new framework affect us culturally? How will we grasp both our morality and our ethics in such an ever-changing society? Or in Descartes words, where will we place our feet on firm ground? Take to mind the image of a sailboat. It has no “firm” grounding, yet it is a mastery of the wind and the sea—and ever changing, ever flowing ocean of air and water. Our grounding will not be so crystallized, but more liquefied. Our knowledge will rest on the ebb and flow of knowledge, network and flowing powers. If the information age has created a sea of knowledge, we must learn to sail upon it.

In this case, we must learn the nature of water, wind and the mastery of information exchange. We must become both sailors and swimmers, fliers in a world where there is no firm grounding anymore—and perhaps we are better off this way. Our fundamental attitudes on things may change, indeed, our very thinking structures may be affected by such a life at sea. We may find ourselves observing the flow between not only networks, but people and their ideas:The flow of perspectives, and their natural development. There may be a natural shift from seeing things in a classical, orderly way (That of modernity), to a balance of both chaos and harmony. Greater patterns emerge, and they may emerge in thinking, in ways that both the modernist and the postmodernist could not easily imagine. Religion, ethics and society itself may find a greater unity in the dynamic flex and flow of perspective. Surface features may become less important, as deeper currents are discovered. We may witness, as we are now, a reemergence of perennial philosophy, and collaborative religions! Imagine that! Protestants, Catholics and Buddhists working together, discovering underlying beliefs and ways to connect.

There are already movements that do see integral perspectives; some are successful, others merely collapse one into another, still others crystallize into frozen maps of the universe. What we cannot expect is a unified theory of everything—What we can expect is the ability to step beyond individual perspective and see the bigger picture, and act accordingly. In short, we are witnessing the birth of a society that no longer requires set boundaries. We are stepping out of our shells, and in doing so are seeing ourselves in a greater, deeper picture than ever before.

Some may turn away from this dramatic shift, and that is to be expected. With the coming of any new age, there are always those who wish to return to the old ways. This is actually quite understandable. Change is terrifying, and uncertain. For the most part, it seems downright dangerous. Yet, this new way of thinking may very well change us for the good—it may help us see that fear is something that must be released and relaxed, in order for growth to occur.

Wisdom of the Ancients

2008-09-07T05:19:00.002-04:00

Q:"The ancients had grand knowledge, but our knowledge has evolved quite far since those days."

A: "How so?"

Q: "Well, we have gone through ten thousand years of evolution- the evolution of ideas, attitudes, beliefs and ever expanding knowledge. Consciousness itself has evolved."

A: "This is true- - though I think there is yet to be something learned from them, the ancients."

Q: "Eco-stability, yes, and perhaps tidbits of wisdom- but they are not the noble savage. They had their own forms of hostility, their own issues and their own atrocities. They were just as human as we are."

A: "For sure. Yet, there is some wisdom in their shamans, and in their mystics. There is some value in returning to the pristine energy of the forest, of reconnecting, resettling into our roots. We can't return to being seedlings, if that makes sense as a metaphor, but we can see where our roots lie, and maybe understand ourselves better through that- we can evolve, not regress."

Q: "I agree. But certainly civilization hasn't had its taste of new forms of knowledge, valuable at that. Knowledge that will allow us to transcend both the past and the grim present, into "now-ness" so to speak."

A: "Of course- but that truth is -being-, regardless of who recognizes it and when. Perhaps as a culture we can evolve to harmonize with that timeless understanding- and that is the purpose of evolution and development. The shamans a thousand years ago, or two-thousand, could be insightful for basic human psychology. They were at the beginning of our fears- still within nature itself! And not yet psychologically divided. Their lessons are our lessons, even though we have gone so far."

Q: "True- and what lessons do you think we could take from their own trials and tribulations?"

A: "That to build a society as a means of subsistence is fine, but that they need to see how it is also meets a psychological demand for security."

Q: "We seek safety, and find it in the village, the culture, the city-state,"

A: "-And the shaman, even."

Q: "Yes, even the shaman. Or priest, or rabbi or leader."

A: "And we've been doing this dance- of yearning for safety and unity, but it was there from the start."

Q: "Being is always there, before the words, before the actions themselves. Before our fears, there is presence. All people of all times could recognize this- but the human race seems to evolve collectively, slowly, gradually as time goes on. This is perhaps just because we are living in the dimension of time and space, and so we are evolving through that too- to reach what they often call a 'quantum' or fourth dimension, one beyond time."

A: "But how would that be possible?"

Q: "We'd have to delve deeply into the science of understanding our own mind-- consciousness, physics and existence. Most importantly, we must step outside of our thoughts, or at least see that we already do- and have bare-attention with ourselves. Being, presence and simplicity are so vital, if we are to truly see if it is possible for consciousness to evolve beyond this construct of reality- we must first start with the basics. Just -be-, between the words, behind the thoughts. This is where we can start, and perhaps this has the greatest insight of all."

Confrontation

2008-09-06T22:56:00.005-04:00

The village fires burned into the night, and the Young Boy sat, wide-eyed at the stars. His father, a violent man, with built arms and shoulders, paced left and right.

"You must not falter, son! Tonight is not just a test."

The ancestors breathed in heavily, silently watching from behind the world.

"Should you survive this-you will be a man, and you may join me in the hunt- at dawn."

The boy shook, his legs weak from trembling.

"Do you understand-my son?"

He nodded.

"Not a word then," said the father, lifting a jug and tossing water onto the fire. Steam and smoke bellowed up through the trees. A moment of silence passed, and the father stormed away, as a panther.

His son remained behind. He took one knee, and reached for his spear. Decorated in a head-dress, the ancient beads from the river, and the feathers of the wild-game in the forest, he walked on.

The forest seemed to lift its gaze from him, its heaviness subsiding for a while. He walked quietly as the path began to wind, and then eventually end. He over-stepped brush and fallen trees, wandering further.

His mind raced with what the elder shaman had told him, just an hour before.

"The mischievous spirits of this wood will test you- and you must show us how brave you can be. Your rite of passage is through the night, into dawn. Do not return to the billowed smoke until you have confronted these spirits. Beware, their powers are only trickery!"

Speaking before the village, the elder shaman cackled wittingly, putting on a form of a show for the people. They trembled every time this story was told, and huddled closer to the evening fires. Their world was vastly unseen by the eye, and forever captured by their minds; visions of spirits for good and for evil, and all in between, danced the forest into life.

The shaman beckoned the boy to come closer. He stepped forward, bowing his head.

"Remember, the water on the stream. What does it show you? You must remember this- or you will not return."

Smiling, he placed his hand on the boy, pushing him back to his father.

"Be strong," his father had stated. He was a man of few words.

The trees seemed to grow thicker here. Slowly he began to feel the prying eyes of spirits. Beings that were unseen, but could appear and disappear- they lived outside of time, and behind the layers of this world. They both played games and assisted the tribe in their survival- and destiny. His ancestors were among them, but so too were his enemies. The shaman had never made clear who he would be facing tonight- only that he must go through them in order to return to the safety of the village, and the pleasant taste of a warrior's meal that was awaiting him.

For now, he reached for some shrubbery, pulling some fruit and biting deep into it. He kneeled, resting for a moment while he ate.

The trees ached, and a presence had entered the forest. Eyes began to watch the boy, as he dropped his fruit and clutched the stick. "Who are you!" He asked. The forest remained quiet, but he knew it was anything but un-attentive. Something was watching him.

A creak from the west, he pointed his spear. "Wicked spirits? Do you challenge me?"

Another creak, the forest seemed to breathe in, and eerie silence followed. The crickets around him silenced themselves, as if bowing down to a stronger force.

Rising from the shrubs, a figure appeared- and lunged towards him.

The boy turned and ran, stumbling on his footing and tripping over thick vines, he leaped back onto his feet and hurled himself away from the area faster than he could think.

His heart pounded, and something inside him forced him to turn around.

Nothing was in sight. The forest returned to its chirping, dancing and breathing. A wind came over the place, and he looked around- a river was brimming over nearby. He moved towards it, towards the east.

Kneeling by the lake, he reached for his left shoulder- scratched up badly. It stung as he poured the cool water over it. "Curses," he whispered to himself. His mind wandered over what the entity could be- and what he should do.

"Coward," he could hear his father say.

For a moment, he imagined himself at a much younger age, seven or so- helping his father hunt for the game of the wood. A smaller pig had charged him, and he had screamed, running for his father. His father laughed at him, "My son! With a heart like that, your stomach will always be empty!"

The boy gripped a stone from the river and tossed it to the other side.

He stood up and faced the thick again. He marched, hesitantly back towards it. For a moment, the trees retained a pristine nature- quiet, swaying gently, shaking with the life of the night. Something shifted, as he parted the tall grass, stepping into the canopy. As if possessed, a terrible feeling began to enter his heart.

"What is this!" He shouted into the trees, raising his spear.

He marched, knees near buckling.

The forest became a deathly quiet, and the being rose again from the leaves. It did not move, it did not gesture. Like a living shadow, he thought. He raised his spear. It did not respond.

"Who are you!" He shouted at it. With all his might, he took another step forward.

It turned, slowly- at least he thought it did, and began to run silently through the trees, zipping through like a cloud or a wisp of smoke. The boy gritted his teeth and followed.

His eyes had become accustomed to the night, and although his heart pounded with fear, his legs began to carry him forward, briskly leaping over rock and stump- he could run through here blindfolded.

The entity had disappeared, but left a trail in the boy's mind- west, towards the very rocks where the sun could be last seen through the forest.

Charging forward, he darted through the trees, his sweat making it harder for him to grip his spear.

At last, he reached the opening, and the rocks. It was strangely quiet, the crickets had once again lost their song, and the night laid barren before him.

The stars were numerous and magical- but the moon was absent tonight. The boy kneeled, praying for his ancestors to watch over him.

"Come face me! Where do you run to, spirit!" He stabbed the blunt of the spear into the ground and stood attentively.

The rocks began to tumble, one by one, from the mount. The being reappeared, hovering over the ground. A tear streaked down the boys face.

It floated over the rocks, before hovering over to him at an unsettling speed. It's face was empty, but the boy was sure he could see a skull within the shadow.

He lifted his spear and pointed it weakly at the being. His stomach did flips, and he could barely hold his weapon pointed. The entity seemed to note this, and with what seemed to be a mere stroke of the wind, the spear was tossed to the ground.

The boy mumbled out the incantations of his ancestors, one by one, asking for protection, casting them against the creature. It moved closer.

He collapsed onto the ground, crawling away, his voice still sputtering out the incantations. The being persisted.

"Who are you!?" He shouted, demanding of it once again. It quietly approached him- reaching what seemed to be a long, thin arm to grab his leg. He kicked at it and it quickly backed away.

He turned to run once again, this way going south-east. The river would be closer this way.

"Remember the river," He thought- running as fast as he could. This was his last idea, and a very creeping inclination he had was that he would not see the dawn.

"Remember the river!" He shouted, seeing it through the wood.

The entity rose up in front of him. He slammed into its chest, and flew back into the dirt and sand.

It kneeled over him, breathing deeply. It grabbed for his neck.

The boy's instinct kicked in, and he grabbed for his spear, wrestling with the creature as it choked him with an inhuman grip.

Kicking and shouting, he jabbed the spear through it, and watched the entity tumble back into the shadows of the forest. He could see it crawl and slither, in wisps across the floor. It remained tangible, present, moving the vine and the leaves.

He darted for the water, his spear left behind. Throwing a rock into the thick, he shouted at it. "Finish me or I will finish you!" He shouted, his adrenaline pumping now.

The entity appeared to respond, floating out from the brush- this time much taller, appearing to have huge shoulders. It seemed overwhelmingly powerful. The boy raised his fists, awaiting its grip again.

It reached down for him, and he leaped into its grip- his arms swinging. He reached for its neck, and felt cold air, nearly freezing surround him. Wrestling it to the ground, he was tossed on the riverbank's sand. Air was punched out of his lungs, and looking up for a moment, noticed the stars again. His minded flooded with the images of his ancestors, watching over him- but they were not involving themselves. Why did they not help?

He was alone, at his last breath- and... He had to fight. Pushing up again from the ground his pulled the spirit into the river, but in the instant that it was about to hit the water - he noted its reflection. It wasn't there! Instead, he could distinctly see himself standing, not struggling or grimacing.

He fell into the water, the shadow figure becoming submerged.

Standing back- he realized it was not there.

He fell back, scrambling to regain his composure- what had just happened?

Looking around, he saw nothing. The water cleared, the ripples subsided, and all that remained was his reflection in the cool flowing river.

"Remember the river," he said, understanding now.

The Boy had traveled into the very depths of his heart, into the west, and the night, to come out at last to see this. He smiled into the reflection, and rested on the riverbank. For years he had tentatively catered for the garden in his mind, its various seeds had carried his imagination from one end of the world to the other, had given birth to both hopes and fears, and at last he could see that. "A master of the dream world sees himself clearly in the water's edge," said the shaman once to boy's father. "Your son must be tested, when the time comes- and we will see if he may take my staff, when the time comes."

The sun soon began to show in the east, and a morning fire burned gently. The feast was being prepared for The Man. Before returning, he quietly buried his garments by the river bank, leaving them behind.

Thinking about Meditation

2008-09-04T18:34:00.003-04:00

How important is it that we feel directly the knowledge imparted to us? Vital! How can we know something truly, without experiencing it? All of the philosophy in the world may not help us, if we do not first stop to listen(Bare attention) to our very essence of mind and body. Is that why so many western philosophers seem to have gotten lost inside their own heads? This is just a quick question, and a reflection. Please, share your thoughts.

Philosophy, Dichotomy and Going Beyond Dualism

2008-09-03T20:21:00.000-04:00

A vs B and why that model’s time has passed.

I started my classes again today. The first up was “Philosophy of Mind.” The professor seems to be very into this topic, and for starters made it very intimidating. It’s not that the material is un-readable, but his harsh grading system (A/F) is a little disconcerting. Nevertheless. What is the philosophy of mind? From what I heard today, it’s the study of the mind/body “problem.” That is, how does consciousness arise in the body? Does it? Do we have free will, or if everything is physical, then is choice an illusion? There are many other questions that come up with this topic. We are going to be focusing on the “mind-body” split and how many philosophers chose (no pun intended) to answer it. Some go for the determinist view, the physicalist argument (No free will). Others go for the opposite view: All is mind. Then there are others who attemp to create a middle way, or balance between the perspectives. I personally agree with the third way, but the philosophy of integral has definitely had an influence in me in this respect.

While in class, I couldn’t help but remember the name of a chapter in Grace and Grit by Ken Wilber, “Mind-Body Drop!” A buddhist teacher used this as a koan, or a pointing out instruction for his students. The third topic I’d like to see in this class (though it wasn’t in the syllabus), would be- is there anything more? When mind-body drops, what is left? Or, as the Zen masters might say, what is your original face, before your parents were born?

So this is what we’re focusing on: The mind/body problem. I’d like to think of us as mind-bodies. We are both biological and mental. Being a fan of quantum physics and all related research, I’m somewhat aware that we are learning more about the mind potentially (pun not intended, again) being quantum-related. That is, some aspects of our consciousness can be explained through quantum science. I need to look up the article, but I recently read that protons move roughly around or beyond the speed of light. This would have profound insights into consciousness and how we experience it.

But, back to the class, “Philosophy of Mind.” I’m going to try not to raise too many questions based on things I’ve read outside of the class. For instance, we know with quantum science that the universe is certainly not deterministic. In fact, it’s all about potential and probability collapsing into our experience. The mind is as much a creator of reality as it is a subject to it. That is, we are biological indeed, and all laws of the universe apply to us, but the brain helps create the experience of reality. It’s our way of interacting with the world, and it has gradually adapted and complicated over the eons.

I wasn’t aware of this, but the term “science” was hardly used before the scientific revolution. Before then, it was called “natural philosophy.” Philosophy was a part of science, and vice versa. So, I see that as an example of yin-yang relationship that I’d like to see in mind-body theories.

From what I know, the problem with the ‘physicalists’ or extreme ‘reduction’ is that it cannot yet account for the very basic experience of consciousness. It just can’t explain why on earth we’d have this awareness.

So, to express my final thoughts on this subject (for now, of course), seeing modern philosophy as a series of “dichotomies” has inherently limited it to dualism, when it has so much more potential. The “problem” of inner mind and outer world can be dispelled, I think, with a third view. Instead of “either/or” let’s look at how “both/and” is possible. Instead of night or day, we have night and day. Life and death are intrinsic, and so why not body-mind? These are all just words, but they point to something more. I think this could be seen as an evolution from traditional philosophy (of dichotomies) to eteology, or the study from beingness. It could be said, the phrase, “I think, I am,” is not digging deep enough. Instead, “I am, I think, I feel, I see,” could help us gain more insight. The space between the words gain importance in an “integral” attitude. The connectivity, the complimenting of once opposing views are deeply valued. Seeing the flex-flow evolution of memes, consciousness and perspective- this is the future of so many things, including philosophy.

And so, maybe I’ll mention these ideas in class, but either way, I hope to see them in our lives. The tool of stepping back from dualistic thinking does not leave us with idiocy, but the profound silence of transcendent and transrational consciousness.

TED Talks, the Future, and Collaboration

2008-08-23T19:00:00.002-04:00

If you haven't seen this one yet, Clay Shirky talks about the differences between institution and collaboration, and what social interaction is going to look like in the future. If you're a fan of open source, what he has to say may hold very promising. From what I understand, he's saying that the huge influx of our information age enables organizations to sort information and contribute knowledge, not by professionalizing (or institutionalizing), but by opening the gates to everyone. The results are far from anarchy. Instead we see a major increase in participation, innovation and progressiveness. He uses the example of Linux and open source software- the fact that one person can develop a program, never be hired professionally, and better Linux without every looking back, is a new and vital tool for media developers, social networks and so much more. In short, I think, open-source is the future. A flexible way to handle the information age without getting overloaded (at least not too much.) Flickr, Digg, and Reddit come to my mind instantly; can you name a few more? The future doesn't look so bleak after all...

here's the video:

2081

2008-08-17T20:25:00.003-04:00

"Everyone Will Finally Be Equal," seems like an awesome film! Originally a story by Kurt Vonnegut, it tells the tale of a dystopian future, where everyone is equal- but not in the way we idealized.

The website writes,

Based on the short story Harrison Bergeron by celebrated author Kurt Vonnegut, 2081 depicts a dystopian future in which, thanks to the 212th Amendment to the Constitution and the unceasing vigilance of the United States Handicapper General, everyone is finally equal... The strong wear weights, the beautiful wear masks and the intelligent wear earpieces that fire off loud noises to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains. It is a poetic tale of triumph and tragedy about a broken family, a brutal government, and an act of defiance that changes everything.

Vonnegut was certainly big on social commentary in his writings (so it seems), and I look forward to this film. It is definitely taking a swing at the relativism/pluralism/politically correct ideologies of the present day, and warning us of a future they may bring, should we not be careful what we wish for. I'll definitely be checking this one out when I can.

You can watch the trailer here:

Letter to a Post-Modernist

2008-08-17T17:00:00.003-04:00

The dissolution of the meta-narrative allows us to see the underlying vast network of "micro-narratives," as if unearthing a simplistic skin to observe a networking root of vines, earth, and complex structures. Like lifting a rock to see the vast life beneath, we see what we have been missing from our understanding. The importance of each leaf, twig, tunnel and worm become vastly more interesting than the concealing rock above, but take note; it is important not to forget how these vast web of life is itself a greater picture. Note the worm that builds the tunnels, that the beetles crawl through, observe the spider, spinning webs around roots, the centipedes and millipedes- all these things are interwoven, no matter what their individual intricacy.

See the wonder of this microcosm, but do not hesitate to sink deeper into the earth, to see the greater flowing networks that bind life and, dare I say, a new grand-narrative, a web of holistic patterns emerges- one that is always flowing and growing, emerging and manifesting in vibrant patterns like life itself. Your awe, wonder and adventure within each microcosm may be valued to greater and greater degrees, but do not forget that all that is, no matter how small, is in relation to other. There are revelations in recognizing the spider web, and not getting caught one one thread or another.

Thich Nhat Hanh

2008-08-11T12:46:00.000-04:00

"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean, is the moment the wave realises it is water."

"The Clash Between Reason and Faith" - Sam Harris

2008-08-05T15:35:00.001-04:00

Found an interesting video of Harris discussing the basic points given in his books. Watch it, and let me know what you think of his points.

Post-Cognitive

2008-08-04T16:14:00.000-04:00

Beyond our faculty of knowledge, the mind rests in 'being.' Ultimately "Budh," to awaken, know or perceive- Bodhati.

We look, therefore, to see if it is possible that the mind and consciousness itself have greater functions than cognitive. We ask if we may already have a, "Freedom from the known." We may perceive "gnosticism" - true know, which is not merely apprehending knowledge through memory and reason.

Mysticism only appears to be elusive due to its wordless, transrational nature. Its functioning is post-cognitive. That meaning beyond the reasoning faculties of the mind. It somehow utilizes a higher, more direct faculty which apprehends "what is" on a direct and non-conceptual basis.

Zen Buddhism, D.T. Suzuki (Excerpt)

2008-08-04T14:40:00.001-04:00

"I said that Zen is mystical. This is inevitable, seeing that Zen is the keynote of Oriental culture; it is what makes the west frequently fail to fathom the depths of the Oriental mind, for mysticism in its very nature defies the analysis of logic, and logic is the most characteristic feature of Western thought. The East is synthetic in its method of reasoning; it does not care so much for the elaboration of particulars as for a comprehensive grasp of the whole, and this intuitively. Therefore the Eastern mind, if we assume its existence, is necessarily vague and indefinite, and seems not to have an index at which once reveals the contents to an outsider. The thing is there before our eyes, for it refuses to be ignored; but when we endeavour to grasp it in our hands in order to examine it more closely or systematically, it eludes and we lose its track. Zen is provokingly evasive. This is not due of course to any conscious or premeditated artifice with which the Eastern mind schemes to shun the scrutiny of others. The un-fathomableness is in the very constitution, so to speak, of the Eastern mind. Therefore, to understand the East we must understand mysticism; that is, Zen.

It is to be remembered, however, that there are various types of mysticism, rational and irrational, speculative and occult, sensible and fantastic. When I say that the East is mystical, I do not mean that the East is fantastic, irrational and altogether impossible to bring within the sphere of intellectual comprehension. What I mean is simply that in the working of the Eastern mind there is something calm, quiet, silent, un-disturbable, which appears as if always looking into eternity. This quietude and silence, however, does not point to mere idleness or inactivity. The silence is not that of the desert shorn of all vegetation, nor is it that of a corpse forever gone to sleep and decay. It is the silence of an "eternal abyss" in which all contrasts and conditions are buried; it is the silence of God who, deeply absorbed in contemplation of his works past, present, and future, sits calmly on his throne of absolute oneness and allness. It is the "silence of thunder," obtained in the midst of the flash and uproar of opposing electric currents. This sort of silence pervades all things Oriental. Woe unto those who take it for decadence and death, for they will be overwhelmed by an overwhelming outburst of activity out of the eternal silence. It is in this sense that I speak of the mysticism of Oriental culture. And I can affirm that the cultivation of this kind of mysticism is principally due to the influence of Zen."

-Zen Buddhism, D.T. Suzuki

A Call for an Open Spirit

2008-08-04T03:56:00.002-04:00

Who are we now,

But boxed candles,

Consuming our last gasp?

What are we but,

Spiraling bubbles,

Tumbling to the surface?

Evaporating,

Merging,

We never left from the start.

Being,

Fighting,

Who is there between the water's edge,

And the roaring sky?

Do not fret,

You are already there.

Do you see?

Opening,

The sun peers over the timeless earth,

Closing,

The Moon stretches over vibrant night.

There is nothing more or less to be.

What more do we have to see,

to remain in the place which is neither

Dusk nor dawn?

The sun tempts to rise again,

Lose yourself,

at first light.

The Answer to Post Modernism

2008-08-03T17:11:00.000-04:00

No matter what academic department you'll find yourself in, this is the most they can or want to offer:

Modernism: Belief that reason is humanity's trump card. Rational thinking and high-cognitive faculties are our greatest potential. With them, we can understand and explain away everything. We can even create grand-unified theories.

Post-Modernism: Reason is not humanity's trump card. Things are much more complicated than that. The world is a dynamic, complex environment which simple abstract thoughts over-generalize and often marginalize many points of view. Science, reason and the enlightenment age are not the answer.

But Post-modernism doesn't provide anything but a critique of modernism: break things down, complicate them, see the dynamics, see how everything is ultimately relative- too complex to ever generalize.

Well, if you look at that for a few minutes, you begin to notice it's not really doing anything but critiquing its predecessor.

All it can do is tear down a flawed house, and point out every flaw within it.

But it offers no alternatives.

In a metaphor, it is likened to two men lost in a forest. One of them has developed a close-circle logic on how to get back to camp. It failed, not taking into account the dynamic nature of the trees, the hills, etc. It didn't fit nicely in a box.

So his friend yells at him, telling him, "It's way too wild out here, no way to box it in like that! Now we're just lost!"

But there is a third option here neither are getting.

Say they bump into a third man, who, instead of either build up artificial concepts, or breaking them down, just decides to look at the trees.

And he starts to look at the hills.

And starts seeing natural patterns that arise.

"There is a river, we were by the river. Maybe if we follow it..."

And so he ultimately overcomes the sea of complexity by discovering patterns, and tendencies in the intricacy.

This is in itself a more evolved form of science, because it requires a more developed sense of perspective. Nevertheless I argue that we all have it.

But, the answer to post modernism is simple: Pattern, tendency, Potential and Correlation.

Seeing underlying causes, roots within the intricacy. Ironically, the best of both modernism and post modernism.

To give one final example:

Notice if you will, that a brain up close appears to be a complex, overwhelming network of cells, organic and not clearly fitting into right angles and grids. It's a mess up close, or at least appears to be.

But if we take a step back, and start looking at the patterns, the net, we see different parts, different functions, deeper parts and more root functions.

We see that the brain has evolved from its former state, the reptilian brain. Yet the reptilian brain stem is not "Inferior" or "oppressed." It isn't over-looked or neglected. It is seen as a part of a larger, functioning whole- in which we don't have hierarchy but obvious layers of increasing complexity, and eventually, consciousness.

And imagine if the only thing we did, was to simply say: Too complex, too organic, too dynamic to understand. We would never have gotten this far in the first place. So I leave you with a thought; that critique, de-construction and dispelling of generalizations is a vital tool for understanding (And in a sense is a way of seeing deeper perspectives), but so too is seeing the forest through the trees. Thankyou.

Night Falls

2008-07-28T21:03:00.002-04:00

"So simplify the problem of life, distinguish the necessary and the real. Probe the earth to see where your main roots run. I would stand upon facts." - Thoreau

Thought-Feel

2008-07-25T03:56:00.002-04:00

We think! And we feel. Yet are not both thoughts and feelings tangled and woven together? It seems that thoughts arise just as easily as feelings, and often one with the other to accompany. Even the most studious and analytic minds are laced with feeling. So it's better to say that you are neither thoughts nor feelings, but slip in between. Yet, we commonly mistake ourselves with this thought-feeling process, pre-packaged in the illusion of time and space (thoughts, and objects). Sheesh! What's it all mean? Only that, you may witness both thoughts and feelings arise, but you are neither of them ultimately. Smile today, frown tomorrow. These are but ripples and waves, and remember, you are not neither.

So what's it mean? Ignore thoughts? Ignore feelings? To do so would be to utterly miss the point, to trip the sign-post and fall into another game (If you'd prefer that, by all means- and keep reading, too). If we see, non-conceptually the present, our filters fall away for a greater recognition of Self, Absolute and "No-thing." The thoughts and feelings, ripples and tides, people and places do not vanish, but they certainly lose their magical "objectivity." It makes life all-the-more connected, vibrant and sensitive. And by life, this is also meant for "you." So we begin to feel, think and breath- and play! For you, I have no interest in changing, waring, manipulating or pulling at egos. For who is there to attach the strings, and what hand is there to pull them?

On Papers, People and the Like

2008-07-25T03:46:00.002-04:00

Leave it to us writers, thinkers to come up with such elaborates tales as "selves." What are such things? Are we not playing pretend when we scribble and theorize, propose and identify? Who is there to pretend? What fascinating masks we weave to ensue a drama of "me," or in academic cases, "us," to play it all out and act as if we are so certain of things, which are indeed nothing but passing in and out of nothing. Beneath our masks, under the stage, we rest in the void- and do not confuse this with nihilism (Yet another game of pretend). Truly, the only place there is anything is nowhere, and the only moment we can find ourselves, true selves (pardon these words, for they are ultimately signposts resting on infinity), is in this moment. What is the past? Do we think?

Perhaps that is the problem; no past exists but our memories, and no future but a speculative gaze, lost in thought. All that rests is presence. This is not obvious, but inherent. If we want to understand ourselves, we can't do it through theorizing (Beating the bush, for certain!) It can only be done directly, now, here. Then we see there is no "we" nor "you," and so you are all things. You are other. You are sunsets, papers, peoples and the like.

Even so, let us carry on and continue the rabble another day longer.

Sociology Cocktail Spiked with Tao

2008-07-25T03:44:00.001-04:00

Who are you?

You are not any object.

Where are you?

You are no place.

Then what is the meaning of all this?

There is no "You" to ask this question,

So who is asking?

In the Present

2008-07-25T03:33:00.003-04:00

Staying in the present with "who we are," but are we really staying? If anything, all we can do is recognize the moment non-conceptually. It's before action, and before thought, so it's non-action, non-thought.

There's no remaining, only training this little "self" to see, simply. Presence is, existence is. You can rest at the bottom of this ocean like the gently rolling waves, but you are not the currents, nor are you the ripples and bubbles that flow through. You, somehow, slip between the spaces and the concepts, somewhere elusive. Not even the term "somewhere" would signify or help us understand you, for this is no-where. Krishnamurti often said that total-negation is the essence of positive. And what does this mean? That to understand "nothing" as "no-thing," (relativity, objects, ideas, concepts) is our true nature. Far from being a barren wasteland, for such a notion would conjure an idea desert or an empty shell of a soul-which is still conceptualizing! True emptiness is the essence of all being- and actions, light, dark, relative and conceptual and yes, you and me as objects arise from it. Take the metaphor of a blue sky. In Dzogchen Buddhism, a meditative practice is to simply "sky gaze." Note that when watching a clear blue sky, you cannot see where it begins or ends, simply that it is without limit in any direction. You lose yourself in this, and that is nothing more or less than what I am trying to say.

Afraid of Who..

2008-07-20T05:53:00.002-04:00

The one argument that is often cited against the spiritual experience: It is a false claim, a projection of the mind, and it is unprovable. It cannot be verified with another person. But what about Buddhism?

It seems easier to pick on the metaphysics of Christianity, since a belief in God often implies a deity, a person or a conceptualized version of the ultimate. (That is a paradox- how can the infinite be expressed and believed in finitely?) This metaphysical being is not provable either way, and so the cyclical arguments go on.

Yet I can't help but question if they apply to some claims Buddhism makes:

-That there is a cosmic consciousness, super-mind, void, true Self, etc.

-These claims are based on the teacher's experience.

-These claims can be repeated and verified.

-Test these claims empirically, through meditation.

Mystical Christians make similar claims, and from a philosophical or rational standpoint, these would not fall into the same category as blind faith, mythic beliefs or superstitions, nor a general fear of the unknown.

We may strive for security in a universe we do not totally understand, but it is not so much that we have "failed" to know things "out there," as much as we do not see our own identity clearly. Our fear is not of the unknown, it is our own shadows. We project fear into the unknown, and not necessarily the other way. Self preservation, psychological and physical security- these drive us to form ideologies and revert to seeing the world through them. It is only through self understanding, recognizing our unconscious fears, that we can transform our understanding and our action. We must be authentic in order to authentically see the world in a new light. Yet, self-reflection (not intellectual but directly observing ourselves) proves to be the hardest of trials.

"Letter to a Christian Nation"

2008-07-17T19:09:00.004-04:00

I'm currently reading this book by Sam Harris. Honestly, as great as "The End of Faith," was -this book is short, sweet and to the point. Today I found a short piece of writing by Vonnegut, in which he writes,

Your rule might be this: If a sentence, no matter how excellent, does not illuminate your subject in some new and useful way, scratch it out.

This holds true, especially for touchy, deep and complex issues; an equally complex style of writing can make the points elusive. From what I've watched of the debates between Harris and others, they only prove this point. Often times debaters will make points that were already addressed in Harris' book. At any rate, this writing style is simple and straight-forward for the most part. It contains statistics, opinions and basic reasoning for the attitudes in "The End of Faith." It's also much easier on the eyes. However, I wonder sometimes about the particular point in his thesis. I'll do my best to accurately portray it:

Religion is an enabler for human irrationality, tribalism and violence, more so than anything else. Therefore, faith, or blind faith in mythical deities is something that has been used as an excuse for hatred, bigotry and ignorance throughout history. By changing the dialogue from defending faith to questioning it's place in our society, we are moving to a better, more rational dialogue.

I sympathize with this view, except that I believe it has more to do with the human tendency to identify with particular ideologies that has created religion, and blind faith, in the first place. It is a form of security that has been built slowly over the eons. Our fear of what we think the unknown allows us to build up walls in defense, and to fight those who would dare to, or appear to, question the stability of those walls of security. Religion and faith, like any institution, is a result of human fear and psychological preservation, rather than a cause of it. It is used as an excuse, but who do we think created faith? This "it" out there must first be owned as a creation, and identified as a projection of our own desire for safety. To me, religion is a reaction, not an action in itself.

Having said this, I do not believe that spirituality and religion are entirely separate entities. We do have spiritual experiences; they exist as a phenomenon that empirical science still grips to understand. Sam Harris seems to agree on this point, receiving much objection from his readers, one of whom believed he was, "Getting soft," on religion.

At any rate, the reading continues!

Falling under the spell?

2008-07-14T11:55:00.005-04:00

Ever notice how easy it is to find a particular view about the world utterly convincing? How we tend to adapt particular attitudes, some of them passionately and thoroughly, and at times find ourselves alienated from our own potential to understand another's viewpoint? Like finding ourselves at the driving end of an ideological spear, we suddenly realize we are defending a view, exploring how it works itself out in the real world. Take race and gender as an example; you notice how it permeates society, so you begin to (if it has been sufficiently imprinted on you by the university, or a particular interest of yours), see how it all plays out. You play the conquistador of equal rights, the bringer of multiculturalism. Seeing a real problem, a part of you sympathizes with the efforts, and wishes to play a part in the on-going war "against" ignorance, injustice and inequality.

Or, in the case of the new atheists, part of you actively takes on a personal effort to immerse yourself in rationalist thought, watching dialogues between the greater ideological spokespeople, reading books and joining forums. You identify with the cause. Your forum tag becomes Dawkins quotes or Sam Harris, or any particular rationalist for that matter. Your identity, at this point, has immersed and linked itself entirely, or at least strongly with the movement, the effort, and the ideas involved.

In both of these cases, we allow ourselves to be strongly shaped by our passionate interest for a subject that we agree on. It seems natural for humans to bind together and identify with groups, be they larger or smaller. Yet it also seems at least a little dangerous in that by giving our minds over to be, in a sense, conditioned by an ideology (fanatic or not) is to limit our ability to understand another. By building the mind for specific tasks, we allow it to be less open to the receptivity of others (Not always, but frequently).

I find in many of the debates online, no matter what particular argument is going on, both sides fail to make the jump to a common ground in which one begins to thoroughly understand the other. Mistakes in interpretation, or simple strong identification with a viewpoint clouds the debaters judgement so that he or she may often miss a critical and interesting point about the "opponent." On the same token, the debater may even make poor arguments based on not thoroughly seeing what the oppositional view is. The fact that we disagree, conceptually, is not something that can be avoided. It goes almost without saying that to disagree is almost natural for us, but the inability to perceive another's attitude, to see through their perspective is something that is so far and few between, yet so important as the information age progresses. Unless we really do wish to see fragmentation, it's important for us to accept that perhaps we cannot entirely understand another's view, but maybe that is not necessarily important. Even agreeing or disagreeing, it may seem, may not be terribly important - save some vital issues and decisions.

In fact, that's the main point trying to be made here: Our agreements or disagreements, our theories and attitudes and ideologies we often follow are more about identification, emotional attachment and willing self-conditioning rather than objective "arguments" or clearly grounded perspectives.

Our ideas are ingrained into our psyche. They are rooted in our conscious and our unconscious, our battlefield, or playground of concepts in which we identify, and this occurs through various environmental and internal factors. The more we understand it's less about "I disagree!" and more about, "I identify strongly with this concept, and since this is who I am, I must defend myself!" We essentially allow our conceptual mind and emotional unconscious to continually shape our identity through time.

Perhaps more often than not debate is little more than ego battling ego, identity versus identity, using the other's defeat to build up your own. In many cases, our interests are sincere. They are not outright selfish, but to observe how we identify with a particular cause, it would greatly help us to not be so blinded by our own belief systems, and so arrogant with others.

End of Scientific Method?

2008-06-28T16:20:00.003-04:00

In Wired, a recent article "The End of Theory" popped up. I decided to check it out, but found myself too distracted to read it until I bumped into it again through a link on Digg. I'm glad I took the time. To summarize, the author describes how the new information age enables us to view exponentially large amounts of data, gathered from clusters of computers, whether they be in our homes or super-computers in laboratories. The new age of technology has seen the beginning of a literal neural network, a complex digital brain that is already a super computer. Because of the seemingly infinite amount of data, and the super-computers that help crunch the numbers, we are able to easily see correlatives. The numbers speak for themselves. Up until recently, information gathering was a slow process, but these days, we can't get enough of it. In fact, some argue there is too much data to swim through. But this vast sea of information affords us the ability to see bigger pictures, tendencies and correlations first, and theories second. For instance,

There is now a better way. Petabytes allow us to say: "Correlation is enough." We can stop looking for models. We can analyze the data without hypotheses about what it might show. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot.
The best practical example of this is the shotgun gene sequencing by J. Craig Venter. Enabled by high-speed sequencers and supercomputers that statistically analyze the data they produce, Venter went from sequencing individual organisms to sequencing entire ecosystems. In 2003, he started sequencing much of the ocean, retracing the voyage of Captain Cook. And in 2005 he started sequencing the air. In the process, he discovered thousands of previously unknown species of bacteria and other life-forms.

Afforded this new technology, science may at last be aided by the fruits of its labor. The digital brain, the super computer may assist us in this data overflow, helping direct more appropriate causation. The author seems to go out of his way to insist the old method is now superfluous. I doubt he is correct on this one, for the sole purpose that causation helps us deepen our understanding of correlation. It's nice to see the acknowledgement of correlation though. For instance, if there is some form of psychic phenomenon, the traditional scientific answer would be: There's no way to prove it, it's probably not real. However, if we take correlation into account, we might see the numbers at least prove it is a significant phenomenon, whether it be social or truly parapsychological.

Learning to use a "computer" of this scale may be challenging. But the opportunity is great: The new availability of huge amounts of data, along with the statistical tools to crunch these numbers, offers a whole new way of understanding the world. Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all.

I agree with Wired on this one. Correlation has the backburner too often. It may end up shining the light where science traditionally takes ages to finally illuminate. With this new and rapidly developing tool, the possibilities of science, technology and at last handling the information age will be even more fascinating. It makes me wonder: Does this open us up for a future integral age? We're beginning to see less traditional methods in science, adapting to new technological possibilities. Will data summaries, connections, underlying themes and patterns start to gain significance? I suppose we are going to have to wait and see what the future will bring.

Roots Intwining

2008-05-30T13:30:00.000-04:00

This morning I was reading Eckhart Tolle and walking around my background (Big trees surrounding a grass center), and I look up and notice that, our ancestors were lucky to have experienced nature in its expansiveness. While nature is still form, it forces us to come out of our me-ness and look at a world that exists without "me," and probably has given birth to me. It lets me see a perspective somewhat outside of my ego, to see how I am a whole-part of the universe, one blossom. The roots in my feet entangle and expand with other roots, and all at once I am back within nature, not going into it. I am blossoming from it, ego included. Call it nature mysticism, but it's a wonderful start for many of us to recognize who we are on our spiritual path.

"Me"

2008-05-26T18:28:00.001-04:00

I'll make this as short and sweet as I can:

When browsing the new age sections, whether in forums or in bookstores, I noticed a surprising trend: Me.

Sure, the ego appears everywhere anyway, but there's a particular emphasis. Self-love, self-empowerment. I definitely agree it's good to have some degree of self-love, but when flipping through all of these books I noticed another tend: Instead of exploring our 'self' through the eyes of spirit, we simply explore our selves to find a cozy spot to settle down in. Bluntly, it's just another escape from true growth. Instead we just find aways to bloat our ego even bigger than it was before. Instead of being self-loathing, we become self-gloating. We're ego-enablers, but not in a healthy way.

Now many a sage or teacher would tell you that the ego is a tricky creature. In essence, "I" am insubstantial, and this is terrifying. So I search and yearn for meaning and self-importance. Yes, maybe this is a stage of our spiritual journey, but I feel that a new problem today is we've created a spiritual-dead end for the ego to settle down in. Instead of pampering ourselves, why not love unconditionally? Love of all things, including your own ego, another object that arises in this grand universe. Love is. Being is. Ego is a part of that, but it is not the whole....

Sometimes silence is all we truly need in order to learn. And it's already there. Instead of running to escapes and building up new ideals, why don't we just listen? Why don't we just 'be' and not 'be for' something? How many new age books tell you that? Instead there is always purpose, mission, becoming. There is nothing to become. For once, just look at the world without labeling it, look at yourself without labeling 'you' anything. Just be aware.

Breaking the Spell:

2008-05-20T13:58:00.006-04:00

Dennett's book is good. There's no working around that. In fact, his writing style is so lively written that I can actually feel the energy he put into the words, the desire for them to make sense and be as reasonable as possible. I think that's what I may be enjoying the most, honestly, over the ideas he conveys. But he does make sense, and the picture he paints is a very pragmatic one. Impassioned logic, I suppose. From his demeanor in the videos, this would not be apparent.

From an integral point of view, I'd like to believe Dennett is one of the most comprehensive out of the "New Atheists," despite the fact that Sam Harris isn't truly an atheist. There are times when yes, he reduces everything to the physical world, and yes, he doesn't necessarily address the deeper, mystical religious experiences, leaving many people like me wondering if there even is a good scientific, rational-based answer to them yet. (I'm not looking for an answer, just curious what they have to say about it... I don't think they'll find an answer). Harris mentioned this deeper, mystical state and related it to consciousness, but did not make a case against it, in fact he outright said it was elusive and not truly related to religion as a majority. Dennett doesn't appear to address it yet. What he does address is the mythical attitudes, their origins, and a call to question them, if for a moment. He proposes a means to view religion: aesthetically, like music art and literature. Things we appreciate and that enrich our world. He then asks whether the pros of this aesthetic view outweigh the cons (This is what I'm at). And that we must be daring, brave and mature enough to question it, to break apart the aesthetic piece.

In a metaphor, he compares it to music. He argues that by analyzing it thoroughly and critically, he is not going to destroy its value. Not anymore than understanding the science behind a musical composition destroys the beauty of the song. If anything, he hopes it will 'break the spell' on religion, and help us truly appreciate its place without blowing it up to such an unquestionable and blinding level. This I can understand is necessary, for the majority of the world's population, to undergo.

So, if he's writing exactly what the mythic-based majority needs to hear, and as carefully and comprehensively as he can, what's wrong with that? I don't feel that the new atheists are necessarily beating a dead horse and cashing in by repeating the story of past scientists and philosophers regarding religion. If anything, a rebirth of critique on the mythic world religions needs to be done in order to help "break the spell," which, for all intensive purposes, has not yet been broken.

If you're interested in him, here are some more videos:

The Science Studio: Interview with Daniel Dennette

The Four Hoursemen: Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins at one table.

Darwins Dangerous Idea

School is Out

2008-05-14T21:00:00.002-04:00

I'm home for a while now. Classes are done!

I'm sitting in my living room by the back door. In the morning, the sun comes in through the back door and windows, in the afternoon it streams in through the front. It's nice being right int he middle. I sit at the living room table, and I'm currently reading:

Dawkins: The God Delusion
Dennett: Breaking the Spell
Eckhart Tolle: A New Earth

Coming up- Watts, Krishnamurti

I started The God Delusion. Dawkins writes eloquently, yet there is a verocity in his language that reveals an inherent emotional bias. Understandably so, he's writing in defense of reason, scientific method and a world where we do not need to strap bombs on our chests to defend an ideology. Yet, this emotional content clouds his judgment. He begins with the idea that we can, if but for a moment, "Imagine" the world without religion. Without suicide bombings and crusades. He cites John Lennon and uses him to enhance the metaphor and the mentality. It worked well, but I think it is not organized religion, per say, but humanity's inherent ability to seek and create ideology. We wish to make things known, to build castles of identity. We do this through science as well as through religion. The difference is, science is a deeper, greater more accurate 'version' of translating the world than old-age myth. To recognize this would be the most humble of acts Dawkins, or any other scientist could do. I'm not giving up though. It is his view, I don't condemn it or embrace it. Reading on!

Boundaries, Not Really

2008-05-02T17:08:00.003-04:00

Even though we may become numb to the outside world, our connection with it never ceases. The level of awareness and sensitivity we have to the universe, inside and out, is always present. This isn't even meant in a theoretically way. We never truly lose that boundless, vibrant state. We can always move beyond our boundaries because, they're not truly boundaries, not really. They exist, sure, and it's our own willingness, our own action of blockage, yes, but to move past them is as direct as moving your arm forward, opening your eyes, or, no, even easier: breathing. It's just there. Feel the air inhale, exhale.

It's difficult to describe it but, our sensitivity to the subtle bodies, including our own, is heightened when we are less inhibited by our own conditioning. "I can't feel this, I can't connect to another's soul, feel their emotions, No way! What am I, a sage?"

Personally I often forget about it, I drift back into a normal, bounded state of affairs. Where we must pick up what others think and feel by clues they give. Where we often hold up our personal fortress and interact with the world through a fence. Sometimes it's so easy to forget that's all artificial, and not realize that being open and boundless is actually a release from such heavy, convoluted mannerisms. It's already, always present. Your fear, your will, your "i" shouting in the night is the only act of refusal. Release, open, and swim a little in the river. For in truth, "simply being" is closer to you than your own breath.

Sunset in the Distance

2008-04-28T10:23:00.002-04:00

So, I was talking with the head of the Philosophy Club, and the philosophy advisor at our school. The president of the club, a graduating senior, is stepping down with nobody to replace him. I offered to take over and reboot the philosophy club. If I have time today, I'll meet with him and our advisor to see what we can do. If this is approved, we'll have an awesome kick-start to next semester. Having started philosophy club in my previous school, this is nothing short of exciting. Weekly meetings where tutoring, discussion topics and much more will be offered. Plus, since these are relatively basic events, we will have plenty of time for Kosmos. Adding to that, people who join the club will be welcome to write for Kosmos, our cross-disciplinary magazine. More on this later...

Sinking Clouds= Thesis?

2008-04-22T02:18:00.002-04:00

The future of sociology will not just be juggling complex theoretical differences and political strife, but also understanding the underlying causes behind our suffering, so that we may at last transcend it. Sociology will offer us a more inclusive picture of humanity, rather than a fragmented one.

Introducing the Ion Engine

2008-04-18T12:27:00.005-04:00

This new "electric propulsion system" enables long distance space travel by harnessing the power of the sun to charge its ion engines. This sci-fi looking ship is being developed by the European Space Program to map out the gravity of Earth, but the hype right now is all about it's potential for true space travel without the need of fossil fuels. I found this at work this morning, and I couldn't help but have a huge grin on my face. The ion engine will be tested first with the GOCE spacecraft, seen on the left.

30 years in the making, the new ion engine may just open up the doors to the frontier of space travel, making manned missions to distant worlds a reality for the next few generations (Perhaps even our own, if you're thinking Mars).

The technology is complicated, yet elegant. The BBC article explains,

"These are the xenon pumps and these are cooled down by the helium compressors to approximately 20 degrees Kelvin," he explains.
"So any gas atoms that strike those panels, they freeze. After you've been running the engines for a number of hours you can see a frost - it looks like snow - which is actually frozen air and xenon."
During testing, the engine fires ions towards the opposite end of the chamber, which has a protective coating of graphite.
"The ions are travelling very fast, at approximately 50km a second," he says.
"When they strike the other end of the chamber, they actually knock atoms off the surfaces they strike; it's analogous to sand-blasting on an atomic level."

Imagine the vastness between the planets, where worlds are but dots in the distance. The only thing you can see is the exhaust from ion engines- pale blue streams dispelling into the darkness, like comet tails. With a closer look, you can see fleets of ships powered by ion engines, traveling to a new colony on Mars, or even Titan or Europa.

If humanity survives this century, we may see such sights more commonly.

Brainstorms and Tsunamis

2008-04-15T11:56:00.002-04:00

I've been asked to write a paper for the upcoming philosophy journal. I really have no idea what to write. One thing that is missing often from universities (and beyond I'm sure) is eastern philosophy- but that doesn't mean I'd have to write something. Even so, it's still a passion of mine. [Pondering] I suppose I could go with openly exploring the common assumptions that dwell within the Plato Cave of our Philosophy Department, 9th floor. Or better yet, continue to write about those foggy forests (images of zen paintings come to mind, with simple black strokes elegantly swooped over white backgrounds- those white clouds). Or in other words, perspective. We all have differing ones, so if I play around with the notion that perspective only goes so far- could I possibly introduce the potential of silence? It helps us listen, it helps us see. When we can see that our minds, so busy constructing master defenses for our viewpoints, are actually narrowing themselves- if we see that the effort in a greater, deeper sense is futile (But not pointless), could we then for a moment embrace silence?

Sinking Clouds

2008-04-13T01:00:00.002-04:00

It's so natural for us to see only through our own point of view. While expressing one attitude or another, we tend to find things that naturally reinforce it. "Oh, yes, see? That makes such sense." We sort of let it sink into our minds, sharpening its talons so that it may defend its truth. I can't help but see this happen in myself and others. They are so much like clouds that sink to the tips of the trees, and only allow us to see so far. No matter how we fight them, we won't be able to 'push' them away. The very way the world looks is through the fog. So then I can't help but to begin to question the importance of viewpoints. If the clouds have sunk into our eyes, we will not see anything more. To recognize this fog is more important. No more shining lights into a haze, if the haze is just going to reflect back our light.

Imperial Guilt

2008-04-10T15:06:00.003-04:00

In the U.S.- those who are aware of the hegemony we wield over the world are often encouraged to feel a sense of guilt. In academic circles, this at times arises as: Shame on you, citizens of an empire! Feel the guilt and then make change for the better!

I'm not sure if this is a very constructive way of taking responsibility. Pluralism and post-modernism, once again, is notorious for its system-busting characteristics. They're very good at deconstructing cultural myths, naivety and bias. That being said, politics and power in the US has been torn into shreds by most academic circles. Political scientists, sociologists and many other thinkers have been very critical of the US political activity in the past century. For good reason.

Yet I think I am resonating with Jim Garrison in Holons News' latest article. He writes,

Republics' imply single nations, democratically governed—which is what America was founded to be. The very essence of 'empire' is the control of one nation over other nations. While America remains a republic within its own borders, it has become an empire in relationship to the rest of the world."
"The central question before America, therefore, is what it should do with all the power that it has—how should it assert its authority, and for what end? This means that America should acknowledge—even celebrate—its transition to empire and acquisition of global mastery...."

~Jim Garrison, America as Empire

Could not have said it better myself. Although I'm not sure I'd go very far with celebrating our empire- I'll go as far to say that I'm grateful for living in a nation with so many benefits. The power we hold has much potential, and it can be used to build up or ravage the rest of the world.

Relatively Speaking

2008-04-09T19:44:00.003-04:00

I've been having a dialogue with a professor of mine. Sort of. It's almost a debate. I don't want to focus so much on our personal clashes as much as the mental-scapes in which we differ. This teacher of mine is intelligent, young, charismatic and whole-heartedly passionate about teaching sociology. Yet, some of the views that often come up in class can at times frustrate me. We'll call her professor M, and for the sake of anonymity I'll turn this into a creative dialogue that sums up our differences, and helps me explore the perspectives.

At any rate, the discussion went like this:

Student Z: Professor, I'd like to show you this interesting philosophy. It's called Integral, or a "theory of everything." What it basically means is a comprehensive map of all of our perspectives, theories and schools- an attempt to see the bigger picture from a wider perspective, without losing any important revelations from each level.

Professor M: [While looking over a few charts in Brief History of Everything]. Sounds really interesting!

Student Z: Yeah, it's actually amazing how it summarizes so much.

M: There's a danger in that, though. You see, I am very critical of any map or system, because a map or system is never going to be able to size up to the human being. We're too complex and organic. A system is a stagnant thing. You might end up marginalizing someone by categorizing them.

Z: Oh, you're totally right. That is, I get where you're coming from. But this is... different. In fact, it even mentions your criticism.

M: Really? [Looking at AQAL] Wow. That's so intricate.

Z: Yes. Basically the difference is: Instead of marginalizing, Integral maps try to be holarchical, not hierarchical. That is, they embrace and transcend. Consider them maps of the mental sphere that reveal that, much like planets are included in solar systems, not rejected, so too are different levels of human thinking included into newer ones. We're layered, complex, dynamic. Though only a map, its a nifty one. It helps point the way to real depth of the human being. This is the big difference between these systems and the oppressive systems of the past.

M: You'll have to excuse me, but I am quite skeptical of something like this. After so many years of heirarchical oppression, the last thing we need is a philosophy that has the potential to be abused.

Z: True. I see your point. I just feel that at this moment in time, more and more people are appreciating evolutionary development. If we keep things entirely complex, continuously more intricate, what do we do?

M: It's really a duty of mine, I feel. To help my students enrich their knowledge, to complicate their thinking, to question aspects of culture and society that are often left untouched. This sort of system isn't something that I feel will help that. In fact, it may over-simplify, or generalize the very things I'm trying to complexify.

Z: Yes, that's true. But what about the people who, like yourself, have broken up the systems. The system busters shatter norms, explore taboos and question our own way of living. But what's next? Or are we to forever wade in a sea of complex theories? Isn't there a big picture to it all?

M: I can't see a bigger picture than that. To see how complex and non-heirarchical our life is on earth is something I value greatly.
______________

This is basically as far as we get. I totally get her rationality. In fact, I deeply appreciate it. But this complication- if that's the great answer, then why do I still feel a yearning? Why is there still a quest in myself for a bigger picture? I feel it's deeper than that. I feel that it's possible to rise up from all of these theories, as Wilber calls "the flatland," and see how it all fits- or if it even fits. If we don't bother to entertain the notion of a bigger picture, how is it that post-modernism can help us? It was born as a system breaker, and now it seems it is bent on destroying all systems, past and future. In essence, it has become a suppressor, destroying the one seed in the garden that will transform our flat earth into a lush and organic forest, let alone universe.

I feel this is why it has been so hard to get ourselves working together. For the first time in history, we are able to communicate instantly, yet we feel so alone. We seek escapes, we yearn for outlets. If anything, more flatland is not going to solve the riddle. Nothing will. But if you want to fly, if you want to touch the stars, you'll need to use structures- at least a little.

Quick Updates...

2008-04-09T04:57:00.002-04:00

Kosmos Magazine is almost at the printers! For better or worse, the large majority of our submissions are creative writing and visual arts. There is a lack of much scientific, religious and spiritually grown work, but I am quite happy with this. Its design has come out great. We'll be sure to get more funding next semester, and there are a number of wonderful projects we have in store. More on this later.

For now, I plan on holding a small event that is open for the school to attend: Zen 101. We were unable to get a speaker in on the day, so we'll be playing Alan Watts and serving snacks, followed by discussion. Looking forward to it!

If you've been orbiting around this blog, or at least beaming in once in a while- thankyou. You've been patient. There's more coming! Promise!

Beyond Sensitivity - New paper, first draft.

2008-04-04T12:44:00.000-04:00

For the first time in history, the whole of our planet is open to exploration. Every crevice, corner, color and creed of the world has for the most part, been touched. We are as diverse as the constellations, our DNA perhaps even more so. As technology and transportation has shrunk our world, we have been forced to greet our neighbors once protected by mountains, oceans and deserts. As civilization has expanded, both our greatest potentials and our darkest evils have come to light. In modern times, a new and particular attitude has developed, allowing us to appreciate our differences. Ideas such as equality, justice, sensitivity and oppression have arisen strongly in the last 200 years, coming to a developed sociological and humanistic point of view in the last century. Suffrage, cultural awareness and cultural relativity are only three out of many more historical precedents.

This new mode of thinking often labeled cultural pluralism, cultural awareness and sensitivity- has offered us freedom from bondage and oppression. No way is the wrong way, no way is the right way. Who is to say one lifestyle is better than another? While revealing a point that can't be ignored, there is a danger that has also arisen. My belief is that "cultural sensitivity" is a doubled edged blade that ends up cutting itself, and defeating its own purpose.

The first issue is the most glaring for me, as I hope I will be able to show you. The second issue is a deep-rooted psychological problem that arises with the pluralist mentality. But, first thing is first.

Foucault, Sartre and many others who orbit around the more existentialist/relativistic viewpoints argued that there are no absolutes. In fact, society itself is a construct of the mind. Morality, religion, justice, law - these old age pillars of past civilizations, present and future are merely abstract creations we attempt to follow. They are diverse and relative, yet all the while artificial. They form the glue that holds cultures together, yet they are also responsible for dividing one society from another.

These ideas have been strongly woven into the founding concepts in pluralism. Yet, the philosophy has seemed to have forgotten something important along the way. In many universities it has been important to explore our cultures, to share them and expose them. It has been important to point out bias and shun it, both in gender and skin color. In some places, programs are instituted to "teach" sensitivity. I can't help but to point out that one cannot force another to be sensitive, anymore than you can help your neighbor learn to care by beating him with a brick. If culture is a social construct, where abstract differences are the only divisive problem, why do we reinforce them? In other words, skin color is a surface difference, underneath which we are all very much brothers and sisters. Yet, it is often the role in sensitivity to embed the individual in his or her own "lifestyle," ethnic background and racial differences. They merely switch of the negative attitude and make it positive. You're differences are no longer rejected, your differences are now embraced. But, you're still focusing on the differences, is there not something beyond these? As important as they are to many of us, to claim our sole or main identity is our skin color and ethnic background is to contradict pluralism.

To summarize, we reinforce our differences, and have not yet come to the point where we can explore our common grounds. Imagine a classroom where students learn about the diversity of humanity through our unity. Unity does not mean all the same, but altogether. For instance, can we pretend for a moment that a teacher stands up before his or her class and says:

We are all human of course, no matter what color our skin is, what we believe and where we are from. There are so many people on earth, each is quite unique, and each culture has its own features. Yet, there are many things that make us the same. Throughout history, we have made mistakes, sought control and power, and feared the unknown. Therefore it is not 'white' oppression, it is not just religious wars - it is a war of ideas, it is the struggle against our own fears and our own groping for certainty, control and mere subsistence. We fight and survive through our ideas, and this lifestyle has let us up to some pretty horrible points. World wars, genocides and the rest - no matter what color we are, we are each capable of these horrors. Yet, at the same time, we are each capable of every wonder in the world. Of love, compassion and understanding, of scientific triumph and spiritual epiphany. This is our story. We are both the oppressors and the oppressed. If we see humanity this way, we can hopefully begin to see the world as a place where we may yet have true change, and true evolution. We may be able to stand beyond the primal war of ethnic backgrounds and control. If we are no longer lost in a myriad of surface features, which are both beautiful and horrid, we may at last see a truth in humanity that lies beyond its past, and is at last recognized in the present.

Athiesm Remix

2008-03-26T19:04:00.002-04:00

So atheism.

"Atheism."

There are alot of videos on the web about that.

"Yeah, I've watched a few. What about them?"

Does it every get tiring?

"Tiring, of what? Dismissing God?"

Well, you think after dismissing the traditional God and the dogma, you'd wonder, is there anything else?

"I guess."

But they don't.

"Really? I'd say they find the deeper questions in science."

Ah, yes, science! Wonderful term for such a diverse investigation of our physical universe. Of course, exploring the ins and outs of our cosmos will be unending and awe-inspiring. A look at the stars has always brought wonder. But I wonder, what has the establishment of science also brought us?

"Well, let's see. Besides its benefits?"

Yes, besides technology, health, long life, computers, internet - all of that.

"Besides the double edged sword bit, you know, pros and cons of science. What else is perhaps catching our eye too much? Are we getting lost in science somehow and missing something else?"

Who knows.

"Well, I'm asking you if this is what-"

-I mean, yes. Explore it a little more. You're getting warm.

"Okay- so we have science, science gives us a particular view of the world. Lets see... Analytical, intellectual, critical analysis. Bit by bit. Cautious yet open."

Ideally.

"Ideally. And this is just about how it approaches everything. Through a scrutinizingly careful study, repeated experiments and the resultant data."

True, true.

"What's wrong with that? It goes wrong, yes, but it's also a wonderful tool. It has helped us survive the ages."

Well, let's get back to square one. Religion and science. This is a fake dualism, I think, because they're not opposites at all. Science, in the history of our civilization, has for the most part tried to dispell theories of our universe that are not as carefully thought out and tested. In other words, they asked: 'Prove it.'

"So the arguments for atheists is, for the most part, that science dispells the myths of religion, and enables us to understand people and the universe in a deeper, more complex and meaningful way than fairy tales."

Yep. And that's right.

"Oh. So then what's your problem with all of this?"

It's only so right.

"Elaborate,"

Well, if we only viewed the world this way, it is saying more about ourselves and less about the rest of the world. There are a number of things that science, in this very cautious and narrow way, enable us to achieve, and certain things it is quite frankly slow to catch onto. For instance, that the spiritual experience can be deeper than fairy tales. Their cautious attitude slowly may turn to negligence of the wonder that was the mother of science to begin with. Instead, they reject it, assuming things that may not be accurate.

"Alright, I'm getting the picture here. Get back to atheism? Not all scientists are atheists."

Right. This is often the argument they use though. That science gives us all answers, inevitably. But this, even according to science, is a striking assumption- that this method, though often cautious, can answer every question in the universe - or that the universe can be understood through answers! These are of course our own subjective experiences - thought, questions, consciousness. These things may or may not necessarily help us understand anything objectively. Science itself, by definition, would call this notion absurd. It would instead answer: Who knows? We may find out if we continue. And that is a more healthy response.

"So what are they really relying on? It seems that the assumption is more of an ideal."

People love ideals. They can escape into the safety of certainty in them.

"Hmm, so it's really just finding another ideal to dwell within. Another castle to defend the insecurity of the unknown."

Something like that.

Succinctly

2008-03-25T12:16:00.002-04:00

Recently I've been playfully and painfully exploring our sense of self, what it is (or is not), and how it is reinventing itself, day to day, hour to hour, and even moment to moment. These investigations have led to compelling discoveries about our own nature, our sense of self, and directly impacting our societies past and present. These characteristics influence everything: from science to culture, to religion.

What is it? Our continual reinforcement of a self as an independent center, the daily constraint and overall control of ourselves and our environment, because we have been taught to be ashamed of our nakedness, our transparency that we are born with and die with. Science, religion, patriotism, ideals, all of these things are attempts to escape our own fear of this unknownable consistency which we are made to vanish in. The nameless and the wordless terrify us, yet deep down we are indeed boundless to ideas, thoughts and time. It is this we try to escape, but the escape is a facade. It is as futile as Alan Watts describes as a, "Snake biting its own tail."

Digging Into Paradox

2008-03-19T15:16:00.002-04:00

I'd just like to share one thought about the traditional evolutionist/creationist debate. Are not both ends of the spectrum merely trying to create a narrative? A story for us? They are trying to write our past, as accurately as possible (For their own viewpoint, of course). Yet, is this digging into the past really going to help us solve the debate? Perhaps we should spend more time in the present moment, as it will reveal more to us than digging up bones ever could. Presence, patience, awareness, reflection on the now. Imagine what scientists would discover already dynamic and whole, in this moment? Perhaps that is for future-scientists to tango with. My point is, it's always, already now.

It's been a while,

2008-03-19T15:00:00.005-04:00

And it may or may not be longer. I've been taking some down time at home to relax, play some games and socialize. I'll soon be back to blog again, as I've found some interesting things while surfing. In the meantime, though,

Farewell Arthur C. Clark (More on your parting words later).

Hello Eckhart Tolle, (Review of the internet class with Oprah to come).

Watching a few videos has made me reflect on the whole atheism thing, and I'd like to share a few thoughts.

new cat! his name is sammy. I almost named him "Azeroth the Hungerer" because of his size, but alas. (Pics to come)

that's it for now, expect these blogs in no particular order....

Swimmies in the Deep End

2008-03-07T11:43:00.003-05:00

I'd like to point out that this was greatly inspired by a friend of mine, for now we will call Owl. I was reading her blog and felt a spark of blogging inspiration. Thanks Owl!

A few blogs back I was inspired to critique and explore my major, sociology. I wrote a few questions that I thought were necessary, but forgotten in the classroom. I have one more:

Can our understanding deepen?

That is, can we understand ourselves, collectively and individually, at deeper and more inclusive levels?

The term is often called holistic. It's how one thing builds up on another, increasing depth, complexity and development in response to environment and change. There's a little bit of physical proof, sitting inside your skull right now. It's your reptilian brain stem. The very, very early state of the brain which handles our bare instincts. Wonderful thing. Causes problems sometimes, but necessary nonetheless. And it was necessary before we could develop the mammalian brain. It's not that the mammalian brain was predetermined, or pre-destined by some archaic, dogmatic faith or oppressive scientific law. Nope! It was, for the most part, spontaneous, intelligent reaction to adversity. So many variables go into evolution that I won't even try to explain them all, or even pretend I know half of them. What I'm getting at here, though, is that evolution exists. It naturally builds on previous states to emerge a new trait. The previous aspect is right there, doing what it always has. The reptilian brain is not "unequal" from the mammalian, for the two could not exist without each other.

So holistic things are inter-dependent as well. We have a world that is a wonderfully complex, hidden dynamic. Like an organism, there are parts, whole-parts making up other whole-parts. Is it any wonder, then, or even truly arguable, that our consciousness, our own mind does not reflect this harmonic universe? Is it any wonder that new stages of awareness, built on previous ones, can pop up in response to our own development and potential growth?

When a child is not raised in contact with other human beings, parts of his or her brain are actualy undeveloped. Because of this, you can make an argument that any such "evolved consciousness," is entirely dependent on your upbringing. That's only partially true. Yes, we are social beings. We need interaction to develop. But that interaction, that level of understanding that is imparted onto the next generation, has shifted and grown observably. You can witness the emergence of worldcentric thinking, pluralism and humanities as more dominant thought processes, as technology, globalization and worldviews emerge and interact.

So, what is more simplistic here? Can evolution, seen so colorfully enriched in our modern perspective, really be labeled "linear?" Or is it perhaps the view that, even in the deep end, we must wear swimmies that is truly the simple one? If people are diving in, there's no need to stop them. Just accept them as you accept the multiplicity of perspectives. Embrace depth with inclusiveness. That is the meaning of integral.

Relative Pitfalls

2008-02-29T12:30:00.002-05:00

There was an awesome presentation today in sociology, where a student had to describe the development of societies. She presented it as an introduction in a basic linear chart: Hunter-gatherer, Pastoral, Agrarian, Industrial, Post Industrial. Afterwards, my professor raised the good point: Try to see the different societies as co-existing. They are not necessarily linear. She asked the class:

"What dangers does this sort of evolutionary thinking provide?"

Student hands shot up, and one by one they called out the dominant flaws:

"It can be oppressive , as if those other societies are "less" human than our society."

"It assumes that the best way to go is Industrial, when it really isn't necessarily so."

"Marginalizes those who are in the lower "levels."

All good points! Of course, I had to play devil's advocate once again. I raised my hand and asked, "But what are the pitfalls of not at least including linear-development in a greater, very relative scheme?"

I continued, "It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You can't just dismiss the developmental aspect of societies. Yes it's not completely linear, but it's not to say it doesn't exist. Maybe if we embraced a vertical and a horizontal thinking system we could understand it better, because it is complex."

The class raised their hands again, repeating the same arguments as they did before.

I tried to clarify myself, throwing out the word "holons," and described a few metaphors (Galaxies, solar systems, planets, increasing complexity). The most that I got out of it was that it was interesting that, "linear views in social sciences persist."

Alas. This is just a ramble. An irritated ramble. It's alright though, as frustrated grip fades, I'll just end this with a passing but important point:

To hold relativism to an extreme is to undermine your own value. No one view is right, except for that view. Accept all cultures, beliefs, societies as equal, except for values that don't agree. And I'll leave that paradox for any readers to poke at.

Nirvana Body

2008-02-27T18:43:00.010-05:00

So what happens when it all finally clicks? When the ego collapses utterly into the divine, when the self discoveries the infinity of love abounding? Is it different for me than it would be for you? We're all unique, for sure. But there seems to be a handful of characteristics, if you will, "before" and "after." As a sociologist, I find myself constantly dabbling into these sort of studies. The empirical poking and prodding method may not be able to grasp the wisdom behind nirvana, kundalini, satori- perfectly fine by me. What it can do, though, playfully and with passive observations, is list a few characteristics about this elusive, mystical state. Believe it or not, there are some physiological traits of this experience. They do not reveal to us the insides of samadhi, only the outsides. So, I promise nothing in this entry that will reduce the mystic to scientific variable, a lab rat, test tube or statistic. Instead, I only offer what empirical science can tell us, and leave it up to the wonderer you are to take a leap into the unknown.

Mystical states are often a process, or transformative growth. One could call it a metamorphosis of you, totally and completely. It's a revolution, J Krishnamurti would call it. A revolution of the bodily state, the mental state, and the spiritual state. To be a mystic misfit, it takes the right tools to unlock a natural process that is already within you. Nope, I won't get into metaphysics. Way too complex for me. There are so many metaphysical theories on the subtle and psychic world, that to try to squeeze them all in this blog would totally lose the point. While you read this, remember that there are exceptions, and that enlightenment is not always so rough a transformation. This is really describing the dramatic, sudden shift that occurs often enough. Keep in mind that it may take years, it may take days. It may be blossom like a flower or rage in like a thunderstorm. We'll be dancing in the lightning for today.

So I'll keep it to the point, and in a nifty list. What's enlightenment like?

The End of Becoming

1. the body.

In The Three Pillars of Zen, there's an wonderful chapter that actually describes a number of satori experiences by both westerners an easterners. In fact, all of these are first-hand accounts. If we wanted to know "what's enlightenment like," we couldn't have found a better answer than by those who have gone through it. So, how do they explain it? The first aspect they often describe is a bodily change.

Hallucinations- Visual blots of light, shapes, figures. These are common.

Tremors- The body may start shaking violently. Not a seizure, but often enough the practitioners must lie down for a while.

Fainting- Literally, just passing out, with a combination of other characteristics on the list.

Sensation of Dying- many feel as if everything is being let go, and they go through a death-experience, the "death pose." UG Krishnamurti described his own experience like this. He actually thought he was about to die, and lied on his bed to let it all go black.

Blackouts- Where am I? Hours vanish, in and out of consciousness.

Intense Pain- The body goes through varying levels of pain. Yikes. Discomfort, aching, or sometimes even total-body pain.

Sweating- Nothing more to say. Usually accompanied by fever.

Often the Roshi will have the person taken care of. A blanket, some water, some rest are all important. The sensations can come and go over a few days, as in two noted cases (one of which is Krishnamurti's).

2. The Mind

The Mind and Heart go through an intense period as the body wrenches through the shift. A severe depression might arise, a disconnect from the outside world, or a hypersensitivity may occur (Asking not to be touched, etc).

Sometimes, the experience is described as an accumulation of all your troubles, your pathologies, your crisis or in other words - your shadow self bubbling up to the surface. You may feel as if every pain and fear you have ever felt is happening now.

3. The Spirit

A sense of many lifetimes may arise. You may feel disconnected from a sense of self. There's no "I" anymore, it's dying. You may feel that your past lifetimes are all coming to the surface. Just like your shadow self, your subtle self is shifting.

The Constance of Being

Often after these intense periods of time, the individual feels absolutely refreshed. There is a strange calmness and resonance in everything. The people, the cars, the plants and animals - it all feels and looks, and is - so vibrantly alive. It becomes difficult to differentiate things anymore. You start to just see things without labeling them. UG Krishnamurti, after his experience, went out for a walk and had to have a flower explained to him. "What is that?" Is replaced by a simply acceptance of everything that arises.

Thoughts seem diminished. They are present, but like everything else that arises, they are neither grasped nor let go. They just come like wind, rain and clouds.

A sense of self is still there, but so tiny the awareness is no longer "my" awareness, little "i" is now just "I am"-ness.

Past and Future as Now

Many times, individuals feel a sense of "timelessness" in which they see past and future in the present. They claim to, sometimes, look at someone else and see their former lives, or even their future lives - just as naturally and as easily as normal sight.

As you can see, the list is dynamic and not conclusive. Not set in stone at all. What it does show, however, are tendencies. Tendencies for gravitate towards these traits. What's it mean? Probably ripples on the pond, the moon's reflection on the surface, when "I-am-ness" manifests totally in a human being. What these ripples will show, however, is that the empirical eye can observe them. That the half blind vision of science, studying bit-by-bit of the kosmos, can begin to see connections, and hopefully a bigger picture here. This is not some crazy "inner attitude" that people can dismiss without a second thought (although this does happen...), what I hope is that other scientists will start taking this seriously, and join the mystics in their song.

From, "You are the World," Jiddu Krishnamurti

2008-02-24T14:06:00.004-05:00

So when one observes oneself, one sees that one is constantly building images in relationship and therefore creating division. Hence there is actually no relationship at all. Although one may say one loves the family or the wife, it is the image, and therefore there is no actual relationship. Relationship means not only physical contact but also a state in which there is no division psychologically. Now when one understands that- not verbally but actually - the what is the relationship between the observer who says, 'I'm afraid,' and the thing called fear itself? Are they two different things? This brings us to the question as to whether fear can be wiped away through analysis. Does this all interest you?"

I read this on the train yesterday. A few nights ago while I was trying to sleep, something like that hit me right before dreaming. I just started "looking" at the way I was building images about everything, and everyone, including myself. Just looking at them. Not trying to change them or adjust them. It seems very interesting now, but when I was experiencing it there was a "light-hearted" nature to the moment. I felt less tense, more flowing. This has occurred more frequently lately. At any rate, I just found it sorta interesting that I opened up this book to something similar. Krishnamurti continues on the next page,

"Because in analysis there is always the observer and the thing observed; that is, the analyzer and the thing analyzed. And the analyzer must be extraordinarily awake, unconditioned, without bias or distortion in order to analyze; if he is at all twisted in any way, then whatever he analyzes will also be biased, twisted. So that is one problem in analysis. The other is that it will take a great deal of time, gradually and slowly, bit by bit, to remove all the causes of fear - by then one will be dead (laughter)... And, even after you have discovered the cause (or causes) of fear, will it have any value? Can fear disappear when I know what I am afraid of? Is the intellectual search for the cause able to dissipate fear? All these problems are involved in analysis because, as we admit, there is this division between the analyzer and the thing analyzed.

Therefore analysis is not the way - obviously not - because one has no time... Psychologically speaking there is no tomorrow: We have invented it. And so, when you see the falseness of analysis, when you see the truth that the observer is actually the observed, then analysis comes to an end.

You are faced with the fact that you are fear - not an observer who is afraid of fear. You are the observer and the observed; the analyzer and the thing analyzed."

Krishnamurti definitely has a way with his words. There is an authority in it, yes, but at the same time there is a clarity about it. Sometimes he can really lay down the wisdom in coherent, flowing words. Reading, I feel, can be just as effective as meditating. It's a form of meditation. Your mind links up with the words, the ideas, the "pointing out" nature of language and lets your ego unfurl its boundaries naturally, exposing your spirit to the naked kosmos. Because of this, I often find myself reading things like this than meditating. It's very natural for me. At any rate, I hope you readers enjoyed this excerpt. More to come.

Upcoming Events for Spring Semester

2008-02-21T14:37:00.005-05:00

2 Movie Showings:

What the Bleep Do We Know?

Contact

Integral Presentation

Zen Meditation Session

So the two movies will focus directly on science, religion and spirituality. The next event, the Integral Presentation, will dive into psychological and sociological issues, presenting debate and discussion over Wilber's work and Clare Grave's Spiral Dynamics. The last event, Zen Meditation, will be an open invitation to the entire campus to try out Zen. Hopefully, a Roshi will be our guest speaker. Otherwise I may have to make a sound-byte collection of Alan Watts or something. We'll see! But yeah, this is it so far.

The only trouble we've been having is with submissions. It's the general apathy of the student body (I'll come to your events, but don't expect me to submit anything). The officers of the club and myself have some anxiety. Will we be able to publish? At this point, I'd love to, and I think we can, but if we don't we still have made strides with the community in presenting new ideas and refreshingly alternative events. So, either way, I feel we're doing very well. And there's always next semester! Hope this continues...

Follow Up

2008-02-20T01:48:00.004-05:00

So, as individual people, do we allow the past to condition the present? Are we perpetuating an image, a memory and labeling it 'me?' If so, the so-called persona of a human being is re-created, from moment to moment, by bringing the past and injecting it into this moment. What happens if that stops, or if we notice this psychological action - just for a moment?

Imagine what implications this would have on a sociologist or a psychologist attempting to describe the nature of a human being, and why he or she acts in a particular way. As a scientist, an inquisitor and an explorer, why isn't this one of the very first things that we are encouraged to engage?

Conditioning The Present

2008-02-18T22:19:00.002-05:00

Furthermore, it is always possible to argue not that we are conditioned by the past, but that we use the past to condition ourselves in the present, and for reasons which are not historical but deeply inward and unknown."

Alan Watts

This one struck me like a koan. How about you? Isn't that interesting? In one striking statement, reasoning is inverted, and pointed directly at the 'ego,' crushing its game by revealing its secret workings (which are all so very obvious at this point).

Imagine the effect this attitude could bring to psychology, sociology and the rest of the sciences? Religion?

Dusty Papers: Sociology Part II

2008-02-16T02:19:00.005-05:00

So in my last blog I was taking a look at the pros and cons of sociology in the classroom. As it turns out, my B+ might end up having to be changed to a C-. While doing some casual research online (Drinking pomegranate tea while listening to Stuart Davis and digging into google), I realized that a number of links under "sociology" were all university-related works, or paper calls in scholarly circles. What about major sociological projects? In many of the sciences, there are at least a handful of intriguing projects that get their hands dirty and attempt to grapple with some new dilemma. Alas! I was mistaken. It seems that a majority of sociology circles are academic based. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I asked a few of my friends why sociology was so university-based. I got a number of interesting points:

1. The US in particular has shifted heavily to individualism- and a science that took the reigns on that was psychology. Sociology is too plural-based to take the spotlight. Instead, we see magazines like Psychology Today answering gender, race and culture questions.

2. Sociology in class rooms has a specific focus: Gender, race, and differences. There's nothing inherently wrong with discussing these differences, but they focus so heavily on how we are different, and on how we stratify ourselves that we end up creating further stratification. By focusing so heavily on stereotypes we actually reinforce them into our daily lives, not dissolve them. Sociologists have to realize that a majority of students have grown up with a cultural awareness since elementary school. The previous generation grew up without many civil rights in place, they paved the way for us. But what they have to understand is that we grew up with those civil rights inherent in our lives. This is far from a perfect awareness, but sociology fails to come to grips in recognizing it, and so the department goes on the back-burner while other departments tackle social issues.

3. I guess this was my major point while on the D Train to Brooklyn: We tackle alot of modern social issues: Gender, race, class, stratification, identity. They are, of course, important. Understanding the major divides in society is to discover them. But then, shouldn't we ask ourselves: Are these symptoms we are seeing or are they the root of the sickness? If a society is full of problems, sociology is great at listing those problems and seeing how they are all related, but they fail at one crucial point - diagnosing and treating. If we are here to study society, to understand the human being, plural, shouldn't diagnosing the problem be a major part of what we do?

You've got some symptoms: Gender bias, class stratification, identity-issues, racism.

Why do these arise? Are they independent of any other cause? Just gender bias arise simply because there are males and females? Things are of course, not so simple. But the point is:

What is it about the human being that divides in the first place? Couldn't our worldview, and our own view of ourselves in relation to the world be a major contributor to the rest of our issues?

Seeing the self as a separate entity, for instance, creates a world where "I" am placed into, and if I am separate, small and fragile, I must develop boundaries to protect myself. When I do this, I might become a racist, a power holder (Make my "self" bigger by dominating others), etc. A number of social issues might be better understood this way, rather than just categorizing stratification, we could seek to understand how and why it occurs in human nature.

On the other hand, if I see myself truly in relation with the world, not self and other, but as self-other or as self-world, it's a whole different view! Boundaries need not be erected so high. In fact, the connection with other humans can help dissolve those boundaries, and pathologies, into creating a deeper, more connective community with less stratification. Instead of building more boundaries by focusing so deeply on the symptoms, I guess I'm calling for a study of human nature, collectively, so that we can help society and our very existence as a whole. That and, maybe save sociology from being forgotten in the dusty vaults of the universities.

Wonder

2008-02-13T02:36:00.003-05:00

For you nerds out there (I guess - is a sociologist considered a nerd?) I'd just like to take a moment to reflect on my chosen major - Sociology. I have been taking classes for about two semesters now, and hopefully am gaining somewhat of an idea of what it's all about.

What is it, essentially? The study of the human collective. It's psychology, plural. Heavily tied into anthropology (that's very similar, with an empirical twist). Since I'm starting this major late into my college career, I'm actually going backwards and taking the introductory class this semester. We're learning the basics: how to do research, research ethics, culture, class, economics, Marx and Weber - all that good stuff.

Now, in my more particular socio classes, we seem to be focusing on these general topics:

1. Class Struggle

2. Gender

3. Globalization

4. Statistics

5. Suffrage

6. Race!

7. Gender!!

8. Class!!

Yes. Something definitely repeats in that list. We are heavily interested in, it seems, class and gender struggles throughout the world. How do the oppressed battle the oppressors? How does matriarchy struggle for a presence in patriarchy? How does race bias affect societies? It seems like, in other words, we're going over the major developments of the last century: gender, class, and race. These are really important issues because they are still issues. In many of my classes, the professors urge us to try to understand the delicate and complicated problems we face, even in the industrialized world. All in all, I'd give the focus a hearty B+.

The only thing I would really like to see more of, and so far am not, are other issues that may be harder to distinguish if we're looking on the surface. It takes a little digging, and a little remembering - but whatever happened to wonder? Or C. Wright Mill's "Sociological Imagination?" I don't want to sound idealistic, but can't we enchant our research with this wonderful tool? We have a great set of lenses to utilize: empirical research, statistics, data, sociological terminology. But what of wonder, adventure, thinking outside of the box? From dabbling into sociological books and talking with my professors, it seems they too are quick to admit you will not find such a spirit hidden readily in scholarly jargon.

In fact, one of my professors even admitted that many books often tend to be a show of intellectualism over any honest, heartfelt questions. So I ask this one: Why can't we wonder? The answer of course, is redundant. Of course we can! There are a few gems in sociological research (Sidewalks) which attempt to narrate the research and make it accessible for everyone to learn from. It's in this spirit that I guess I am writing, too.

And in that case, let me wonder a little with you. These questions, right now, I'd like to ask without imposing concepts, and thus a bias:

1. What makes us tick, really? Not just economics, biology- those are a part of it. But really, what makes us tick?

2. What fundamental assumptions to we use to create how we see our realities?

3. Or even, can our basic assumptions about the world, and our relation to it affect every aspect of our reality - from individual actions to entire civilizations?

4. What discoveries has wonder brought us?

5. Because we believe we are born into the world, and not out from it - does this make a difference? Can it describe why things are the way they are? (Not in good shape for civilization, it seems.)

6. Let's allow ourselves to just wonder, and see what arises.

These and so many questions have arisen during my classes, but alas - they are never 'satisfied' or rather, no meaningful answer is given. To add to the starting point of criteria in our classes, I'd love to see us crack open Alan Watts' book, "Man, Nature and Woman." It explores our fundamental assumptions about humanity that run deep into culture, history and pour out in the present. The belief that there is a "self" and "other" for instance, creates a duality that seems to birth every opposite in the cosmos. These points, risen by Watts and many eastern philosophers (and sociologists in their own right), could do wonders for helping us understand ourselves, singular and plural. Why not start sailing the inner-cosmos, as well as the outer? To borrow the shamanic label, it's time for sociologists to embrace the psychonaut.

Reading "The Sociology of Early Buddhism"

2008-02-10T23:19:00.000-05:00

So, while browsing links after searching google for "sociology, buddhism," this book came up. Being a sociology major, and very interested in how sociologists approach (if they do...) eastern contemplatives, I was excited at the discovery of "The Sociology of Early Buddhism," by Greg Bailey and Ian Mabbett. I browsed through the pages and started reading the first 15 (As they skip a few after that, insisting you buy the book to read it). At any rate, they began to discuss an apparent "problem" in understanding how and why Buddhism arose in ancient India. I had some trouble understanding what the problem was until they wrapped up the issue in a single paragraph (A rare treat for scholarly books):

"...Buddhism to have been something which, in its origin, it was not. In its origin it was a message for those who wished to forsake society, abandoning everything. It was not a rationale for the ambitions of holders of power and magnates. The gap between the austere ascetic impulse and the needs of expanding urban kingdoms is great indeed."

They continue to re-emphasis this point, sometimes in short paragraphs, other times in long, drawn out pages. Alright, well fair enough point, BUT wasn't Buddhism from its very start, a practice of the "middle way?" In other words, it wasn't about extreme abandonment or extreme indulgence. Have these authors included in their analysis, an understanding of Buddhist teachings? Or are they scratching at surfaces (Historical context, sociological concepts, etc). The more I seemed to read, the more I felt that the authors were setting up a false polarization of city vs. rural, ascetic vs. king. A book that helped me realize that this wasn't a centralized issue in understanding how Buddhism arose was Karen Armstrong's "The Buddha." Although her book is a little heavy with info and terminology, she writes the story wonderfully and really helps the reader understand how it all began.

The beliefs of the people at that time were ripe for a practice that would liberate themselves from "dukkha," which stemmed from a belief that suffering wasn't just in this life, but in others as well. You lived many lives and what you did here and now was a result of your own actions. At any rate... There were many different schools at that time, and Buddha himself wandered through 'em. India was ripe with a desire for liberation. This is somewhat of a cultural context, and C. Wright Mills' "sociological imagination" calls us to really try and walk in their shoes to understand it.

And second point, just scratching the surface of this book, did they review what the Buddha's own understanding was? His own teaching professes that one could achieve a "transpersonal" state of awareness in which one would be liberated from all objects that arise - whether it be another human being or a tree, or even a hot meal. But, having gone through his own testing, he realized one could not jump to an extreme. It wasn't a matter of "rejecting" society outright and completely, but embracing all things by not being attached to them. This principle, if you will, made Buddhism strongly appealing. It helped Buddha see through his own ego, more easily connect with his listeners and monks, and sway even the greatest of kings (Which, mind you, were also heavily religious). If you want to understand why Buddhism is appealing, you can't reject the essence of Buddhism itself. You can look at the historical context, the economic context, the sociological context, but feel free to dive into the teaching itself and explore what the meaning could do to a society that was ready and willing to explore good wisdom.

Alright, the rant review is over. If I can get through the rest of this, I'll try and see if there is anything I was dead-wrong about. So far though, I'm just a wee bit disappointed.

Weird Mars: Civilization and Apocalypse?

2008-02-10T17:24:00.000-05:00

Did Mars once harbor a lush organic landscape, with civilizations that erected epic-sized pyramids? Could a catastrophic collision with a meteorite or some other large projectile in space, have decimated Earth's sister planet and left it a cold, barren red wasteland? Sounds amazing! Is it true? This team of researchers and scientists raise the questions about Mars, and demand for NASA to investigate strange evidence that would support these "crazy" claims. From bizarre tree-like shapes to strange pyramids and structures that resemble built structures, they investigate the intriguing possibility of a former civilization on Mars. That's all I have to say, let the conference speak for itself. If you're a space-geek like me, sit down, have a snack and enjoy the slideshows - and let me know what you think: Could there have been life? How could this effect us earthlings?

Google Video: Press conference about life on mars

"Change the Guard" - A Call to End Political Dynasty

2008-02-04T22:30:00.000-05:00

A new blog by Lance Garret Steagall labeled, "Change the Guard," thunderously raises a point that has not been raised enough in the presidential race: The fact that two families have been on the top for the past 20 or so years. Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, and now Clinton again? So where is the change?

A brave citizen asked this question to Hillary, and she danced around the answer with usual political eloquence:

CLINTON: Well, as I have often said, I regret deeply that there is a Bush in the White House at this time. (Laughter.) But I think that what's great about our political system is that we are all judged on our own merits. You know, we come forward to the American public, and it's the most grueling political process one can imagine. We start from the same place. Nobody has an advantage, no matter who you are or where you came from. You have to raise the money. You have to make the case for yourself …

And, you know, it did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush, and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush. (Laughter, cheers, applause.)

It's shocking, no, disconcerting to hear little concern with this fact. Is she an agent of social change? Or is she a way to manage and continue the status quo? Is she truly just like the rest of us, the "same place," or is she privileged on the top?

Steagall writes,

In saying "nobody has an advantage, no matter who you are or where you came from … you have to make the case for yourself," she denied the advantage of having a former president, still revered by much of the Democratic base, actively campaigning on her behalf. When Bill said choosing Obama is "rolling the dice," he proved that, in fact, you don't always have to make the case for yourself. When Hillary sent her husband out fund-raising, she proved that you don't "have to raise the money" yourself

It's very clear that she has every advantage over Obama - and this in itself is not a bad thing. Nobody ever said politics was fair. Though, I'm trying to make more of a case about privilege, which both Bush and Hillary have.

Steagall continues,

Every Bush and Kennedy in politics makes it clear; if you're a member of American political royalty, you've got a jump-start.

Her supporters can argue over the degree to which she has benefited, but they cannot argue over whether or not she has benefited. Hillary did not start from the same point as her competitors, she did not make her case by herself, and most important, she has no claim to change in this election.

Thirty years of the same two families in the White House is enough. It's time to change the guard.

Yes! Could not have said this better, and I'm glad someone out there is articulating it so well. I have never been too attached to principles and ideals, perhaps due to my own social hermitage, but there is something very wrong in allowing a virtual dynasty, blatantly obvious to an increasingly apathetic people, to continue. Hillary promises universal health care, while Obama does not. Is this really so? And how can we trust her? We know for certain she openly endorses and encourages her association with interest groups- and a majority of these interest groups are not interested in 'the people,' but their own financial benefits, and have been the source of resistance of universal health care in the U.S. for decades. Meanwhile, Obama is better at bring different social groups together and allowing compromise. His integrity is also steered at least a little more toward the people. As a sociologist, I find this sort of trait, or characteristic very important for a world leader. If our nation is truly "for the people," why are we continuously electing a small few to run the country, who are honestly looking after their own interests over ours?

I suppose this rant should make one final point: It's a shame it has come to this: Clinton vs. Obama. Kucinich was a worthy candidate who was slowly and cunningly pushed out from the spotlight by media, interest groups and political enemies (Not to mention Ron Paul was not mentioned once last night on Fox News). By endorsing Obama, am I just giving into the political game? Who knows, but I guess I'll leave it at that, and try to take some action, because it is usually better than none at all in the political world. As a side note, I would love to see how the Taoist concept of non-action can be integrated into modern politics. Hmm, more to come!

Peace, Being,

Shaman Sun

Putting It In Perspective

2008-02-03T18:35:00.001-05:00

Congressman and candidate Ron Paul has often mentioned putting the middle-eastern situation into perspective. What would happen if we were being occupied? What would happen if China was on our soil, using our resources? How would we react to nearly half a century of foreign occupation? Well, J.L. Bryan has written a fake timeline to show you just how you would feel.

If Iran Were America (And We Were Iran): A Timeline

He opens with,

This is for anyone interested in understanding what American foreign policy has done to people in Iran. (For simplicity's sake, I have combined the roles of the USA and the UK, as the USA was assuming control of the former British Empire at this time.)

Sure, it's just a switch - but it makes all the difference. I recommend that this is shared with folks and friends, just so we can really appreciate the importance of perspective.

Top 4 Writers Who Should be In Classrooms

2008-02-03T15:45:00.001-05:00

Even though modern education can easily stuff our minds to the brim with intricate servings of "thinking critically," we never seem to apply that knowledge to ourselves. To top it off, most of the education we learn here in the West is heavily euro-centric, taking years to update and embrace new modes of thought. So, what if education were to begin to assist students in self-knowledge, and explore different worldviews that radically contrast, perhaps at surface level, traditional western values? What if east and west met? And then, what if east, west, north and south all found a congregation in the classroom, providing a mirror of both self-reflection and knowledge in the classroom? Man, we'd have one bad-ass educational system. Don't you think? This "top 4" is in no particular order, and I suspect it's the beginning of a long list of often-neglected writers would stir hours of conversation and thought in universities and high-schools across the world. In particular, the U.S. is in desperate need of new and dynamic education.

1. Alan Watts:

Why? Alan Watts is one of the few classical, yet easily accessible writers of eastern philosophy. Considering himself primarily an entertainer, his way with words, as well as book titles: "The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" provide both an intellectually stimulating and interesting read. He often gives readers an easy way into understanding the concept of the self, and how it is truly embedded into the world. We blossom out from it, not descend into it, he might say. This would provide students both younger and older, a freshly alternative view of the universe and their place in it. The often euro-centric classes would be shattered by a playful, creative and intelligent author. Watts is also the author of a huge collection of books, documentaries, lectures and essays. The possibilities here are endlessly fruitful.

2. Daniel Quinn:

Why? While Watts would help us ask big questions about who we are, Quinn will wittingly pose the deep, societal questions about aspects of civilization we take for granted. His work, particularly the underground classic "Ishmael," would force us to question the fundamental belief of civilization as a myth. Why are we? Why do we live like this way? Did human beings ever live another way? Aside from generating discussion, it would stir the cultural sediment and perhaps inspire a student or two to take action and openly explore alternate modes of living and subsistence. Quinn explores the lifestyles and culture of tribal societies vs. civilization. Tribal societies were, and still are, capable of a balanced and long life within nature, while civilization is always looming in the face of disaster, collapse. Quinn poses this theory: That perhaps our civilization was flawed from the very beginning, 10,ooo years ago. Check out his site.

3. Jiddu Krishnamurti:

Author, philosopher, teacher and mystic. Why the pick? Krishnamurti is a system-buster, plain and simple. Systems are practical, but having a system buster is in itself healthy for a check-and-balance lifestyle, where nothing gets out of hand, and culture, let alone learning does not become like stagnant water. He raises the big, awkward questions: Why do we have religions? Are they escapes? What are ideologies but security fences to dwell within? He forces us, once again to question ourselves. It's not just a matter of thinking critically "out there," but what about "in here," in you and me? Self knowledge extends to world-knowledge. If we accept our insecurities and are in a constant process of self knowledge, then the lifestyles we will lead will reflect that. To Krishnamurti, the world's conflict is in fact an extension humanity's inner-conflict. In the library of books, essays and lectures he gave, the one resounding teaching was that of an inner revolution.

4. Ken Wilber

Why? Well, he's been around long enough at this point to have both introductory books and in-depth and heavily detailed explanations of integral theory. He, like his predecessor Alan Watts, is deeply concerned with exploring the relations between east and west. What you will find is his ability to tie to the two together, finding east and west and west in east. Not only that, the cultivation and development of the integral theory provides a method and a philosophy that will help students see a "bigger picture." That is, see underlying patterns in seemingly different theories: psychology and art, sociology and quantum physics (Weird, eh? I'm sure there's something...), religion and science. The concepts and methods involved stimulate the analytical side, as well as the creative and explorative side of our minds. His works will raise deep questions, and ask students to ponder a world not only of horizons but of heights and depths. It explores consciousness in ways that are not usually emphasized. It takes the huge array of theories about everything, and makes a coherent "map" of them. Whether or not this map is effective will be up to the students to discern, but it is the vast library of material, of the general integral philosophy, following in the footsteps of the perennial philosophy, that will tickle the students minds and spirits. Not to mention, he is a fellow, at least part-time, blogger.

That's it for now. These list-blogs are fun to make, so anyone who reads this site should expect some more...

A Little to the Right

2008-02-03T13:22:00.000-05:00

While browsing the blog-sphere, I came across this interesting blog by Dr. Martin Rundkvist: US Politics have no Left Wing. The key point I found here was the absurdity of American politics - to europeans, even our "liberals" are seen as conservative. We seek moderation, we do not promote change, not in the truest, most progressive sense. Only now are we seeing the possibility of a woman in office. Are we truly leading the world in the latest and greatest expression of democracy? And, are the democrats truly 'left,' or do they sway a little bit more to the right than we would like to think? This is what Dr. Martin has to say,

So, believe me, US politics don't have a Left. Looking at the presidential candidates, I am frankly appalled. None of them would be a viable politician in Sweden. They all support the death penalty, none advocates strict gun control and all make frequent mention of their religious beliefs in public. These are extremist stances. Not even the tiny Christian Democrat party mentions God publicly in Sweden, for fear of alienating the pragmatic rationalist majority.

Putting things in this context creates a drastic gap between our ideals about what it is to be democratic. In a sense, this forced me to think about the relativity of our politics. More and more, it seems we are standing more on the ground of loose myths about our country, instead of steady facts.

From a European perspective, US politics are an ongoing battle between the extreme Right and the middle Right. The Republican presidential candidates are really, really scary people in my view. So all of us in the world at large who live under the shadow of US political hegemony are holding our breaths, hoping that Clinton or Obama will make it into office. They're pretty bad, but the alternative would be unspeakably dreadful.

It is sad that it has come to this, but of the two, I'd say Ron Paul or Obama will have my vote. For one sound reason: integrity. The both of them have been pretty consistent, and do not play dirty politics like Clinton tends to. Not to mention the strange fact that two families have been running the country for the past 20 years: The Bushes and Clintons. This is rather more like a dynasty than a democracy. Just for the principle of it, I do not trust a small group on the top to simply pass around the presidency to the "privileged few." How come nobody is mentioning this?

Except for Mos Def on RealTime with Bill Maher. I think these questions shouldn't be considered absurd. If anything, let's explore the possibilities first, no? I do appreciate Bill Maher's work, but the one thing that gets to me is at times it seems he is too easily dismissive. At any rate, have a laugh and learn a lil':

Stream of Consciousness...

2008-01-30T21:55:00.000-05:00

Nested here,
On my pirch in the city,
I watch the world spin around.
Rested here,
On my city step,
I listen to the sound of Heaven and Hell,
And all that is forgotten,
In Between.

The school life is like a daze, where you can lose yourself in books and social activities. A few steps out the door and the world still plays the game of "becoming," with everyone busily working on one thing or another. At times it seems silly to watch everyone buzz around like bees going somewhere. Going, going, always going - but where? And why? I follow nonetheless, for a delicious flower to suckle life from, the act of becoming. I wonder sometimes if this is our grand myth, this act of becoming. If I write, it is in that state of wonder. That subtle watching we are all capable of doing, the eye that sees a life unfold over the years, is the eye that can most dispassionately, yet most fully and completely observe the act of becoming, without becoming itself. More and more these days, there has been a sense of "watching" my life instead of becoming lost in the story. The habit crystallizes, will it shatter?

Come come,
Play pretend for a little longer,
Your laughter,
Your hatred,
Your tears,
Your drama,
Let it unfurl most obviously,
So that I,
That little Witness,
can play Audience.
Come come!

The show must go on!

Of Monkeys and Typewriters

2008-01-28T10:23:00.000-05:00

I was just reading Alan Watts on the train today with my girlfriend, who we will call Siamese Dream. We were talking about how, no matter who you are reading, it seems that many of these teachers resonate with the same meaning, from Wilber, to Krishnamurti, to U.G. Krishnamurti, to Thich Nhat Hanh, to even Eckhart Tolle. Even those who disagree, who may have metaphysical or intellectual disparities, resonate the same understanding; that there is more than bickering, that there is a greater awareness, consciousness - or all pervading spirit in all things.

"Why is it that, with all of these teachers, nothing has truly shifted? You'd think that with all of these individuals, something would have changed by now in the general culture."

"True," she said as the Brooklyn train came to the next stop, "But it gets no coverage. The media chooses to ignore it."

She brought up a good point. No matter who we read, and how we read it, it is often very difficult to bring about change without the assistance of media coverage. Especially today. A minute later, after the train picked up again, I looked up to find a lady reading Eckhart Tolle. We smiled at the synchronicity, and continued reading.

"What's that?" My Siamese Dream asked, looking at a picture in the Watt's book. It was a picture of, literally, squiggly lines, or as Watts calls them "Wiggles." The universe, he points out, is just a bunch of wiggles. You don't know where it starts, where it ends, and nothing is outright cut and dry.

It is the "Net" or "Web" or "Grid" which we have imposed on the world which allows it to start to make "prickles" or straight edges. The wiggles are made sense of. Yet, even this "grid" is another image imposed on the world. The stars, he notes, are not perfect geometric shapes, but rather like drops of water splashed randomly across the sky. It is our minds that creates and maps out the universe, making "start charts" and grids to help us navigate. I looked around, at the subway train, at the buildings outside, the tracks, the cars, the roads, and didn't find one wiggle at all. The only wiggly parts, it seems, are the people themselves. We're quite Wiggly, as Watts points out, and with our minds we make "prickles" to shape the world and make sense of it. That's all right of course. Our brains are developed in such a way as to promote this. But if we are to truly transform, or at least be able to get along better, we have to understand inter-dependence on everything, and the very nature of "prickly" making vs. the natural wiggly world.

So that all really means - self knowledge. Understand your own being, how you come into being, who you are, and how you "are." Part of this is questioning and openly exploring your own nature, and your own assumptions about the world.

As we got off the train, we discussed the last lines read in Watts. One being - given infinity, all random things will happen. This myth explains away all 'meaning' behind life, existence, love, beauty, etc. And the bleakness of this theory is meant to be embraced, toughed out. We both eyed this scientific myth with a skeptical eye. I feel that it is better to be skeptical, to be open to the possibility of "randomness" being wrong, just as much as we are open to it being right.

Given enough time, would a monkey on a typewriter create Shakespeare? Even if they did, what would the gibberish be after it is finished? There seems to be more "consistency" in our consciousness, for me to outright embrace this example.

As we walked toward the school, we entertained one last thought: Although the theologians defend the faith in deeper, more meaningful ways - it is the stereotypical images of faith, it is the general mentalities that people embrace and utilize. As much as we like to look to the defenders of the faith, or any belief or system in general - we must not forget the general, surface levels, because they are what effect the culture, the consciousness, the collective, perhaps at an ironically deeper level than the deepest of theologies.

Bringing it to light, "Perhaps that's why these great sages haven't deeply affected us - because every shallow surface is shinier and more attractive, and the public takes the bait." They dare not take off the swimmies and dive deep. This doesn't make any kind of superiority in anyone who does, it just shows that, generally speaking, if we want change, it has to affect people on a massive, surface level - the media. A look at Kucinich is a great example. He is an excellent thinker, politician and has great plans for the U.S. Yet, the media willingly chose to discredit him, and then outright reject him. The effect? No coverage, no mass support, no voice.

To end on a good note, I have hope for the future, and am excited to see more sages getting a louder voice in a world that is increasingly filled with "white noise."

Check out what Alan Watts says about "Prickles and Goo"

Paranormal Journal, Part 2

2008-01-26T17:27:00.001-05:00

The first blog entry here, not so long ago (last fall) talked about the possibilities of the paranormal. I guess this is just a continuation. UFO's, crop circles, alien abduction, exorcisms; all of these things used to tickle my imagination. Don't get me wrong! They still do. It's just that they no longer captivate me for hours on end anymore. I remember finding a quiet place at the library in elementary school. Beside me lay a pile of UFO, alien, and bigfoot books. Isaac Asimov also remained close to my side as I learned about each planet, each solar system and the future of space travel. I'd often tell other 2nd graders horror stories, alien abduction accounts and warned them that spirits could be everywhere, so watch out! Naturally, I didn't have too many friends after scaring half of them off. Those who stuck with me also seemed to share a flare for adventure and mystery. But anyways, all of this is really just me rambling about how much the paranormal genre has permeated through my life.

So this blog, every once in a while, will poke at that genre and see what happens. Take this for instance:

It's a little compilation of different crop circles. The intricacy is truly remarkable, and these things pop up quietly over night. On occasion, the owners of the property report seeing strange "Lights" dancing over the field, only to find massive and perfectly formed geometric shapes on their farm the next morning. According to Wikipedia, crop circles date as far back as the 17th century. Here is the story and the picture of the infamous "Mowing Devil."

Although some men have confessed to making these,

Doug Bower and Dave Chorley made their crop circles using planks, rope, hats and wire as their only tools: using a four-foot-long plank attached to a rope, they easily created circles eight feet in diameter. The two men were able to make a 40-foot (12 m) circle in 15 minutes.

The phenomenon itself can't be discredited so easily, as weird evidence begins to pile up that just doesn't make sense conventionally. For instance, the amazing intricacy of the crop circles, with perfectly formed geometric shapes, suggest that a simple wooden plank would not do the trick. If you take a look at the first image in the blog, of the alien holding a disc up towards the viewer - this is a real crop circle! Appeared overnight. There is something bizarre about this one, as it appears to have a "3D" effect. Considering the scale and the detail in creating this, either the hoaxers have created a new and elaborate system in which every shape is created in perfect geometric harmony, or something equally as strange is going on. To add to the mystery, many of these detailed crop circles, when examined under a microscope, have shown signs of microwave energy. That's right, as if the plants were pushed down by a microwave blast. Bizarre, no? I'm trying to find the source for this information. I saw it on T.V. a few years ago, and more recently it was noted in Daniel Pinchbeck's "2012; The Return of Quetzalcoatl"

So what does it all mean? Who knows. The crop circle phenomenon is not so much a problem as it is a mystery. Whoever creates these has mastered an art form, creating complex geometric symbols, meaning and mathematics in these works. They inspire thousands to wonder, and perhaps, for now, that is at least a start. If only the media would cease turning a stubborn eye from the mystery, and dabble in true blindness of the unknown. That's the great thing about all of these mysteries, they test our arrogance, and reveal to us our ignorance. They invite us to accept the unknown as something that we cannot necessarily master or know. They tempt us not to create new ideologies, but to reflect on how we often become trapped in them. At any rate, that's it for this paranormal journal. See you next time!

BLank

2008-01-26T16:54:00.002-05:00

It's Official!

2008-01-24T15:15:00.001-05:00

This is it folks! Fordham University has officially accepted KOSMOS as a club! We are now funded by the school to pay for our publishing. Awesome! Now calls for the heavy task of advertising. Fliers, fliers fliers, I say. We already have a few up in the main building. More to come. Any ideas for design? Any concepts for the journal? For anyone who just started reading or has been reading this blog, suggestions are welcome. Our first issue comes out in March. Our mission? Generally speaking, to bring each of the academic departments together under one magazine. Science, religion, philosophy, art, journalism, creative writing - whatever genre, whatever department, you are welcome here. We will also be exploring the edges of academia, and beyond. We are offering students a chance to learn about alternative knowledge, integral philosophy, and a creative and intellectual outlet. For those who are particularly spiritually oriented, we offer a channel for their voice. Come one, come all, you are already a part of the KOSMOS. As a bonus, we are designing the magazine itself after integral models. We're even having a Zen event this spring! Look forward to hearing more updates...

East Meets West; Psychology for A New Paradigm

2008-01-22T18:26:00.000-05:00

The labeling power of psychology can be mishandled, not only by intention, but by the very nature of labels, diagnosis and categories themselves. On the other hand, the positive aspects of knowledge enable the "knower" to see into things that may have before been mystified. For instance, knowing the terminology of an organ and the technical knowledge to operate enables a surgeon to efficiently handle procedures. But, can this same type of approach be used for the treatment of the whole human being, beyond his or her physiological body? In other words, the classical psychological approach is to learn how to map out the mind like an organ, labeling each mental state, thought, emotion and experience to its appropriate category. The mind, abstractly, is a vast network of logical equations and variables, in which the psychologist, or psychiatrist maps out and diagnosis. Although well researched and carefully thought out through rigorous scientific investigation, it is only so useful. For, the inner experience of "who I am" is dramatically different than the objective operating table. To the "me" inside, the experience of self is dynamic, organic and very much alive. Every day we are flooded with emotions, ideas and experiences which call for an understanding of "innerness." So, to approach the human being as merely the "outer" organs in which the self is hidden within, like a ghost in the machine, automatically creates a gap between the psychologist and his patient. This distance is perhaps unnecessary, as the psychologist himself is a human being, with an "inner" too. Is it possible to thus use an inner science to compliment the outer? Perhaps it is an assumption of our time that, to be scientific one must view the world through steel microscopes, to reduce the world to "outers." This would leave the human being missing quite literally half of his being, and this forgotten "inner" is perhaps just as important as the "outer," for it animates existence with the experience of life, the mysterious awareness we all have. The body and brain, in this sense, is the seat of the soul, or the self which is the hidden observer within us all. Without this, we are merely empty bio bags without a self. In the medical world, such a description would be called brain-dead. What is trying to be emphasized here is the need for an integrated view of our inners and outers.

So the problem of the psychologist is also the benefit. Her labeling power enables a field to work with, operating on the "inners" from the outside with a neat map to navigate with. To make this more tangible, take the example of a patient and psychologist. He takes a seat in a comfortable chair, with wooden floors and a well-lit room.

Now, the patent is suffering from a stormy, emotional inner of ups and downs. The patient describes this as being out of control - extreme moments of excitement followed by crash and burn bouts of depression. There are no go betweens, the patient describes, and he loses "common sense," potentially able to harm himself and others. He has finally gone to see a psychologist in hopes to gain some peace and autonomy back into his life. Now, hypothetically, the man is not aware he is suffering the symptoms of what is commonly called bi-polar "disease." After listening carefully, the psychologist can infer that he is a classic "bi-polar."

She describes to him the diagnosis, the cause of which is often explained by chemical imbalances in the brain. This is a life long disease, she describes, you have to learn to live with it. She recommends him to a psychiatrist for medication.

Medications, such as Abilify, might be taken by this man, in order to regulate the ups and downs and smooth out their peaks. This diagnosis, classically, is the best they say they can do. Now, there is a limitation to this kind of treatment as much as there is a benefit. By labeling something, we give it a certain connotation. It shapes its reality for us. This can both serve to narrow something or to enrich our understanding of it. Writers in the west, such as Foucault, tell us of the empowering, and potentially containing power of knowledge. Jiddu Krishnamurti describe how once you give a title to something, all potential to truly understand has ceased. It has now become a dead thing, shelved, booked, recorded and stored away. What is required, he suggests, is the capacity to listen, to explore the territory before squaring it away in maps, systems and modes of thought. Only then is there potential to truly connect and understand, in the unlabeled, dynamic, organic nature that is the human being, and is life.

Suspending for a moment, this library of classical psychological criteria, "diagnosis" then becomes a less restricted move to connect with the individual in need. The lense of abstraction is lifted, and if we have let down our own boundaries for an instant, perhaps we would see a different view of the "bi-polar man." Perhaps, then, we will have a different explanation for what a mental illness actually is. Perhaps, the previous divide between the inner and outer is what has created such great mental stress and strain on the human being. Questions like this will be free to be explored in such a new paradigm of thought.

Let's say that after a lengthy description of his symptoms, the patient is then asked to explore the causes for them. Through a careful self-analysis with the psychologist, the patient discovers he is repressing emotional insecurities, tension, anger and anxiety - and these repressed aspects of his subconscious slowly bubbled up into the sever condition he is in now. The man gains inner-knowledge, or self knowledge, instead of just outer knowledge. He is thus dealing with an internal experience, learning to understand its sources, as well as an outward understanding of his physiological makeup.

Good health is not just the intake of diet, exercise and proper sleep, it is also the inner health, the mental, emotional and psychological state. A good model for psychology, then, would recognize the human being as a complex creature of both inners and outers, as intricate as the single flower, with biological systems that dance in dynamic, organic equilibrium.

It can be said that we would no longer treat the machine to get to the ghost inside, but see both as direct, experiential and tangible. William James knew this early on, beginning his own journey through "inner" world by stating, "We now begin the study of the mind from within."

Within and without, let us begin our study, and usher in the new paradigm of a psychology for a deeper, wider and more inclusive world.

Along the old Temple Path

2008-01-20T00:55:00.000-05:00

I was reading an interesting website, Michael Teachings. It is generally considered a new-age revelation, where a being from a higher spiritual plain has 'channeled' its wisdom to us folks in the jungle. I know there is alot of criticism with New Age teachings, and I'm not sure if channeling is what they often describe it as, but I'm willing to be open to the possibility. While reading this site, I kept a healthy skepticism, but found some good teachings that truly resonated with Integral theory. For instance, the life of the soul, according to Michael, goes through levels. Five levels to be exact. In the beginning, "baby" souls are open to psychic powers, do not differentiate themselves much from their environment, and often are passive and cautious. It is even mentioned that "baby" souls resemble "old" souls in this way, but they are two very different stages of development. According to Michael, one must go through all the stages of development to get to the "old soul" stage, even though "baby" and "old" stages resemble each other. This struck me as a clear example of understanding the pre-trans fallacy. In this sense, the general philosophy of Michael is vertical. He also teaches a variety of 'horizontal' teachings. I find it interesting to note that the stages of the soul resemble spiral dynamics.

The middle stages are more violent, defensive, meme-war like and karma-collecting. "Young" souls thrive in "I do what I want" environments, and "Adult" souls thrive in mythical, rule-role environment. Interestingly, it seems that the "Mature" soul is one who is tied between worlds, who is beginning to think in new perspectives, to shake loose the bondage of mythic structure and embrace pioneering fields. They are the troubled geniuses, Michael says, who are disillusioned and attempt to make sense of the 'unknown' without just translating it into meme-wars. Sounds almost like 2nd tier structures in spiral dynamics, no? The beginnings of integral, the existential self, etc. To sum it up, 'Mature' souls are finally clearing out their karma, and letting go of the burdens accumulated from past lives. They are also beginning to be the 'self reflexive' type, understanding their own psychological issues.

At last, the "Old Soul," is one who has at last dropped a majority of the karmic bondage and emotional baggage. The old soul is described as one who resembles a physiological old person. They tend not to be noticed much, as their development is extending beyond this 'plain,' or in integralist language, resonating with transpersonal states. Because of this, they seem to resonate less and less with those who are still grounded in the more earthly, physical domain, and mental domains. That is, personal and pre personal. Because of this they are, in the most direct sense, in the spirit of Taoism, one who is simply content to just be, and let things occur naturally. There is less 'doing' and more 'being,' but an acceptance and understanding of both. The previous 'stages' may not like this, or even pay attention to 'Old' souls because they seem to embody the spirit of action through non-action.

So, what 'stage' do you see yourself in? They can of course be intermingled, intertwined, or transitory. Personally, I see myself as dancing between the Mature and the Old soul. Often I find myself attempting projects, trying to 'connect' or 'resonate' if you will with many communities. The Integral community, Zaadz, Gaia, Tribe.net, as some examples. Yet, it seems almost natural for me and my blogs to go under the radar, hardly noticed. I think after reading Michael's teachings on Old Souls, a part of me has come to accept that aspect as natural and possibly even good. A constant struggle for me, it seems, was getting involved and noticed in these communities. I always seemed to disappear between the cracks. Not to complain, but it definitely was a downer for me. Maybe if I accept the quiet that's around me, I can learn a thing or two from the silence and find a better way to resonate with others.

So, in that sense, I'll walk the old temple path, and not try to set up shop in market yet. Who knows who or what I will stumble upon. The stones are ancient here, and the temple falls gently into the forest's embrace. I have no dazzling community, nor podium to speak to many and with many, but that's alright. Every breath and leaf, flower and tree, being and non-being that is both seen and unseen, has a lesson to teach.

"This Is It," Alan Watts on Integral

2008-01-20T00:04:00.000-05:00

"Psychologists with a slant to materialism therefore argue that mysticism is nothing more but sublimate sexuality and frustrated fleshliness, whereas the spiritists maintain that the love-imagery is nothing but allegory and symbolism never to be taken in its gross and animal sense. But is it not possible that both parties are right and wrong, and that the love of nature and the love of spirit are paths upon a circle which meet at their extremes? Perhaps the meeting is discovered only by those who follow both at once. Such a course seems impossible and inconsistent only if it can be held that love is a matter between alternatives, if, in other words, love is an exclusive attitude of mind which cleaves to on object and rejects all others. If so, it must be quite other than what is said to be God's own love, 'who maketh his sun to shine upon the evil and the good, and sendeth his rain upon the just and the unjust.' Love is surely a disposition of the heart which radiates on all sides like light."
-

This is It, Alan Watts pg 119

Yeah! That's what I've been thinking. It's an excellent metaphor for what it means to be 'integral.' We simply observe any side, extreme, point of view in our awareness without demonizing it or rejecting it out right. It's accepted for what it is, just like when light shines, it does not shy away from the shadows, nor build fences to defend itself against the dark places. It simply resonates. We can do our best to reflect this ability in our lives. Applying this practically, Alan Watts was describing mysticism and the opposing views it had with his contemporaries. It still holds true today, however, when we look at magazines like Psychology Today, which typically reduce all spiritual and 'inner' experience to outer, empirical phenomenon. In that sense, and as Watts says, both sides are right and wrong.

Th-eism, Ath-eism, Trans-eism

2008-01-14T19:44:00.000-05:00

I guess you could call it a rant of sorts. Definitely fits that description. It's also my intake on the atheism/theism debate that's going on in our culture right now, and a heartfelt attempt to dig little integral bits from the ideological wreckage that's going on between both sides. I wrote this after watching a debate between Hitchens and D'Souza. No matter how this fight will turn out, I think we need a call for integralists to start offering, if only subtly, a 'third' way of sorts.Posing a question to everyone: Should I attempt to host a 'debate' at my university, in which an integral "side" (hehe) would also be represented? What do you think?

Q: The Universe is too perfect, too intricately constructed to simply just "appear" out of nowhere. Where do you, a non-believer, think it came from?

A: Why are you so sure that the absence my reason is the presence of yours? Are you sure that your interpretation is correct? Couldn't it be man's attempt to interpret the apparent void we came from? The mythic god in the bible is no different than the mythic deities of Ancient greece, in that they were both imagined to explain spiritual experiences and the world. Emerging from a patriarchal civilization and thus bearing such royal names such as "King of Kings," "Lord of Lords," with such honorary titles and reverence are common in Judeo-Christian culture. This made monarchal society reflected in their own view of the universe, kingly, divine and monotheistic. Is it any wonder that a culture ruled by a single, dominant male figure who is the king of all the realm, divinely appointed, would create a religion which also has a monarchy on top? This is not some ultimate truth, but a reflection of monarchal worldview. Other cultures of the east, north, south, shamanic, oriental - have dramatically different worldviews and their religious beliefs were effected in a dramatically different way.

If we must pose the question: What did all this come from, then? If not from God?

I would ask to first define which interpretation of God you have?

A monotheistic, biblical deity?
A non-dual, "Big-Mind?"
"Suchness?"
"Noumenon?"
"Witness?"
"Great Spirit?"
"Brahman?"
"Void?"

What interpretation, what level? What depth? To answer you directly,

I denounce the reality of the mythical, Biblical God
I reject the atheist vs. theist war of ideologies
I embrace the possibility of spirituality, but only question the interpretation of it by religious groups.

We attempt to understand the divine, but we interpret it depending on our own background and conditioning. Can we appreciate this? Can we sort through, beyond the boundaries of conditioning, to touch the divine without claiming it for our culture?

Manipulation of Media

2008-01-13T17:17:00.000-05:00

I was browsing Digg.com a few days ago, and I came across a video from a Fox News Republican Debate. There was a certain piece of the debate that was actually cut out from the re-broadcast. This piece features an aggressive question against Ron Paul: Are you electable? Shortly after the youtube video began to gain attention, it was removed from Youtube due to "user term violation." In other words, was this Fox trying to cover it's tracks? Either way, it's up again, at least for now. If you have a chance, please check it out here. This video may vanish soon, and if it does I will leave the broken link up for everyone to see. Freedom of information? Public representation? Fox news appears to daringly abuse it's journalistic power, and manipulate what information is and is not represented.

Another video. This one is from PBS, detailing the level of corruption that is going on in the current election... Thankfully, PBS is not owned by the major power holders in mainstream media, and bless them for it:

Dreams; From Myth, to Reduction, to Transcendence

2008-01-13T14:53:00.000-05:00

While browsing Psychology Today magazine, I read the article "Dreams: Night School." The author, Jay Dixit, begins with the description of a lab test on rodents. The experiment deprived rats of REM sleep for a number of days, and then subjected them to go through a series of "survival" tests. Instead of exhibiting typical behavior that would ensure a rat's survival in the wild, they acted abnormally, and perhaps even dangerously, seeming to lack the natural cautious instinct (Grooming in the open instead of hiding, etc). The final stage of this experiment was to give the rat's amphetamines to compensate for the lack of good sleep. To no avail. What the scientists came to conclude was that a rat needed to dream, or go through the normal cycles of REM sleep, in order to function normally.

Dixit goes on to describe the function of dreams themselves, the why and not just the what. Two basic concepts are described:

The Freudian: Wish fulfillment, sexual or forbidden desires masked as nightmares, working out emotional conflicts.

The second and more modern interpretation tosses out anything that in depth, and merely describes dreams as random thoughts that arise while the body recovers and goes through the cycles of sleep. As Deirdre Barret is quoted in this article saying, "the noise the brain makes while doing its homework."

The author then asserts that these basic descriptions were the final say about dreaming until the latest discovery. The psychologist Antti Revonsuo interprets dreams as a sort of testing ground, where nightmares are a school of sorts in which the dreamer is put through obstacle course for survival. Or, as Jay Dixit calls it, "A Theater of Threats." Multiple scenarios play out, and your skills are tested in the abstract playground in order to prepare you for waking life encounters. This is why, Revonsuo believes, when actually going through dangerous experiences, they actually can be described as "dream-like" and automatic. It is because we have gone through similar scenarios in our dreaming life, and are in some sense trained to handle the situation while awake.

When Revonsuo began studying dreams, he asked his students to start keeping logs of their own nocturnal escapades. He noticed something striking. The dreams were filled with dangerous events, negative emotions, monsters, chases, escapes, fights, and near-death experiences. The dream world was a hellscape of danger, teeming with threatening events far more sinister than in waking life.

Antti explains this through an evolutionary perspective; our ancestors must have dealt with constant danger, always struggling for survival, whether we were fending of animals or being chased by prehistoric predators - the human brain developed a nighttime training ground in order to prepare us for the toils ahead. In theory, the brain uses emotions, particularly the negative ones, and traces them back to what caused the fear. It uses these memories to construct a hazardous scenario that we thus struggle through.

I do have a few problems with this theory. First and foremost, not all dreams are about mere survival. The author does mention this towards the end of the article, describing stunning scientific revelations while in dreams, or even the fact that Paul Mccartney heard the song Yesterday in his dream, woke up, and wrote it down.

It is because of experiences like this, and a variety of others that I feel that the "Dream School" theory is a partial truth.

For instance, I had been meditating consistently last summer, and at one point I actually began to meditate in a dream. It started out normally, and perhaps typical of the dreams mentioned in this article: Survival, every-day life. I was running through a mall trying to beat the clock. For what? Who knows. Physical objects confronted me. I jumped, leaped, ducked, darted through, eventually finding some small wing that lead outdoors. This was it. I looked at a clock to note the time, and then something profoundly different shifted the dream.

I left the mall and found myself in the woods. Breathing, relaxing, letting go, I suddenly found myself surrounded by animals. There was something unique about them though. I felt connected, as if I were a part of them, as if I were ingrained into the environment. A piece of a dynamic and organic unity. The "flowing" open and boundless state of consciousness began to pervade the dream. The forest was vivid, alive, always moving, and the animals began to communicate with me. At first, it was not in language, but emotion, basic thought, and simply "awareness" of each other. Then, the animals began to snarl, growl, and fight each other. I felt somewhat threatened, but the meditative state pervaded over the danger, leaving me relaxed and aware.

A small animal, perhaps a dear or large rodent, looked at me and began to speak, "There's no need to worry," it said, "You see how everything simply is, and this is true even in nature, you know. We are all simply being." I suddenly became aware of the "Witnessing" state described in meditation, but curiously I was aware of it in every animal, every tree, every rock in the forest. I understood this was what the animal meant.

Suddenly, a bear charged across a stream, directly at the animal that spoke to me. It simply looked up, calm, poised and in some mental sense, giving me the 'half smile' in Buddha pictures. "Even now," it said, as the bear came down on the animal and killed it. Throughout this apparent viciousness, there still was a calming, changeless, nameless presence. I awoke from the dream lucid and awake, and profoundly moved.

Dreams like this one convince me that the dreaming state has a multitude of purposes, each existing at different levels. The survival school scenarios I am sure are a part of the dreaming reality - the subsistence, the instinct. Going deeper, dreams appear to have an emotional aspect. They are also as Freud described, emotional-based, confrontation with issues and hidden desires. From instinct, to emotion, to ego. They are also spiritual, transcendent and mystical in purpose. A dynamic dance between our instinctual and spiritual nature, giving us lessons, training grounds and transcendent opportunities. They need not be reduced to mere "survival" school scenarios, but embraced and transcended.

As a side note, I'd be interested to hear what supporters of the Dream School theory would think about the effects of Iboga, a powerful african psychoactive. After taking this potent shamanic drug, users reported needing a mere few hours of sleep. Daniel Pinchbeck, in his book "Breaking Open the Head," explores this curious drug and its affects. He describes his own experience as a transformative one, likening it to years of psychoanalysis wrapped up in one evening. He reported needing little sleep, and little dreams for months afterward. Pinchbeck suggested this might have something to do with Iboga's balancing affect, somehow healing the rift between left and right brain hemispheres. I'd be very interested to learn more about this.

At any rate, this just goes to show the world of dreams has multiple levels of meaning we have barely began to touch. But what is more apparent now is quite striking: They touch each level of the human experience - from pre-personal, personal and transpersonal. In that sense, I can understand why Tibetan Dream Yoga has such an appeal. Dreaming life, like waking life, has the potential for mystical transformation

"Hacking Democracy"

2008-01-11T12:25:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching the HBO Documentary, Hacking Democracy. And, let me tell you, this video really made me wonder if our votes really count anymore. The video's premise is this: Do our votes really count? Are they being manipulated to sway elections in one direction or another? The voting machines themselves are owned by private companies that do not even allow those in charge of elections to understand the technology. They are supposed to be secretive, and only to be repaired and managed by the private companies. Yet, in this documentary, a number of individuals easily obtain program data from one of the larger corporations - Diebold. Diebold is harshly criticized for its negligence and conservative favoritism. Yet, as only the truly corrupt can do - it is not removed from its voting contract! Only the flawed machines were banned. The corruption within Diebold was scolded publicly, but embraced out of the spotlight.

There are a variety of voting issues raised in this documentary. For instance, in areas with struggling economy and lower class citizens, very few polling machines were even given to them. One or two machines were expected to handle hundreds of voters, standing out in the rain for hours. This negligence is an issue all to itself.

As a final blow to Diebold, a number of computer scientists manipulate Diebold electronics to rig a test election. The question was a matter of whether or not it could be hacked, and whether or not the hack could be detected. Sure enough, it was successfully hacked, and sure enough, the hack was not detected! Diebold insisted that this was because it wasn't tested by their own technicians. Fortunately, this excuse does not hold sway, as a growing number of scholars and computer scientists have confirmed Diebold's nearly pathetic lack of security. This raises the very disturbing question for many citizens: How much do our votes count? In the 2004 presidential election, one district even managed to get negative votes! After a thorough analysis, it was determined that this was a very unusual problem that had never occurred before, and could only occur if someone was deliberately attempting to manipulate the votes. What's going on here? As a partial nihilist (I admit sometimes I really am), I'd say that this is nothing new. We know the government is corrupt, we know many Americans don't vote anymore, so is it such a surprise that private interests have begun to become more important than public?

Bringing this topic to the current presidential race, Kucinich has asked for a recount:

Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday's election because of "unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots."

Quoted on the issue, Kucinich says,

"I am not making this request in the expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of votes that were cast on my behalf... Serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days... It is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interests of public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the election machinery - not just in New Hampshire, but in every other state that conducts a primary election."

Kucinich raises a critical point that I feel may fall on deaf ears. The goals of those interest groups, those government officials are set and charged. They have their eyes on the prize, sitting comfortably in subtle thrones of power. Why would they want to give up their cushioned thrones of bureaucracy? This is something that the American people will need to continually keep tabs on, and consistently battle over. It's a fact of life that powers corrupts, no? It's something we all crave, yet I hope that our nation has not completely lost power in its ability to do checks and balances.

For anyone who's interested, here is an article describing Diebolds machines and elections:

"Elections can be stolen in under a minute with Diebold Machines"

You can watch the documentary in full here: HBO: Hacking Democracy

Or in parts 1-9, here: Hacking Democracy 1 of 9

The Presidential Debates - A Review

2008-01-09T02:12:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone. Just finished watching the Republican and Democratic Debates in New Hampshire. The actual numbers aside, I'd like to just take a few minutes to review and summarize the general mentality of each party, what was said, what was not said, and who was left out.

The Democratic Debate

To bring this up because it needs mentioning: Dennis Kucinich was excluded from this debate by ABC, raising a great deal of controversy and an official file of complaint by Kucinich. He argues that such an act is unfair, and not in the best interest of the people. I'm going to have to agree with him here - It's not surprise that ABC, like any other major news corporation acts with a bias and utilizes its power to hold sway on how an election, or for the moment this race, will turn out. It's a shame that Kucinich was excluded, as he missed valuable airtime and the chance to discuss his values with the American public. He has proven to be more than a worthy candidate in the previous debates. I guess we'll see how this ends up - but for now here is a video by Kucinich's news site concerning the ABC exclusion.

Moving along, and taking a look at the actual debate.... There were quite alot of accusations. Obama accused Hillary, Hillary accused Obama. Edwards made a call for a crusade against interest groups. They were kept in the spotlight for the majority of the debate. Issues centered around healthcare, terrorism and more worldcentric policies. This, generally speaking, is good. Unfortunately it seems alot of the debate was kept on trivial differences - each candidate attempting to one-up the other in, "I'm more progressive than you are." This is a major turn off to me, and perhaps my sharpest criticism. We want individuals who will can lay specific plans on the table without constant bickering with other candidates - an individual who can make his or her own stand without needing to attack others in desperation. Unfortunately, it seems one of the few who were able to do this - Kucinich, was excluded. There's more to my rant on Kucinich's exclusion, but I think that one deserves another blog. My apologies to the readers if they've heard enough. Please, feel free to skip that future blog.

Republican Debate

There is a stark contrast between this debate and the Democratic one. First off, I don't see the appeal in any of the candidates - except Ron Paul. A majority of the candidates agreed on some central issues: That Bush had the right idea, but didn't execute it completely correctly. They believe that the primary issues are security, border control and nostalgic principles of honor, duty, military background and loyalty. Candidates like Huckabee also seemed to support a strongly religious undertone. One of the most shocking statements in this debates was Giuliani's, "We have the best health care system in the world." I nearly choked up a mouthful of chinese food at this point. It seems the majority of the candidates support sentimentality and ideals over realities and facts. If they merely looked at some of the facts, such as this one on digg.com : 10 Myths About Iraq - They might have something more valuable to say. I hope that the American people can see through these general myth-based beliefs and sentimentalities, and realize it takes true courage to embrace the issues of the modern age- and the responsibility to take on new perspectives.

Republican Debate Part 1

Democratic Debate Part 1

The One Place,

2008-01-04T14:41:00.000-05:00

The One Place,

One question I must ask you is: Must it be a physical place, or can we start with the mind? In other words, I’d like to pose the idea that many of the major issues we are facing in today’s civilization begin inwardly, and not the other way around. This is not to deny many of the physical world problems; disasters, weather, disease, poverty, famine, etc. It’s only to acknowledge that perhaps humanity would be more prone to assisting the areas of the world that are in need of great help, if on the “inside” we were more prone to do so. It seems to me that there lacks a certain capacity for compassion. We are not sure of ourselves, and the world we live in is already so terrifying, that so many of us seem to be more interested in our own psychological security before anything else. There are varying degrees of this, from your neighbor buying a Hummer to military dictators slaughtering the innocent in the name of power and control. Although the gap between these two examples is great, inwardly – it might seem that they both stand in common ground.

We are terribly afraid. And let me propose this common phrase as the reason behind that fear: “We are afraid of the unknown.” If you really look at this phrase, you will see it is impossible to be true. Who can fear the unknown? If we don’t know what it is, how is it that we are afraid of it? It would seem that we do not fear what may lie in the darkness, but rather we conjure our imagination to create monsters in the darkness – and we mask the darkness with a boogey-man so that we at least have something labeled, known, squared away. Concepts help us, at a psychological level, control our reality. And control is safety. Fence by fence, wall by wall, we build fortresses of ideology in order to transform the world into a place we can feel secure. If our inward sphere of reality somehow became physical, we would see vast castles around individuals, cultures and people, all attempting to round everything up into the realm of the known. Come to think of it, if we look at our civilization today, this may not be so abstract after all.

But that just goes to show what I am trying to convey here – We crave and act upon anything and everything that allows us to feel secure with ourselves. And this, it seems, has been the driving force of civilization. The security of power, the security of ideology – war and politics, conquer and divide – these things have been churning the gears of our societal juggernaut for ages, and it seems there is no stopping it until it destroys itself.

What can we as individuals do, then, to help? Do we start at the grassroots, and work our way up? Do we help the poor, the needy, the hungry? Or do we engage the realm of ideologies and attempt to settle disputes and transcend idea-wars? I would argue that both are necessary, but must stem from one authentic part of ourselves – our compassion for the world, for all life. We must have it in us to lay down our own burden of issues, to face our own issues with compassion and boldness. There is no other way to bring about change that is lasting and ageless. This compassion itself invokes a higher state of consciousness, or level if you will. One in which the human being is no longer merely concerned with both physical and psychological subsistence. The capacity to connect with others, to open up, to listen, to understand human nature because they understand themselves. If we could only do this, we may begin to see major shifts in the way civilization handles its problems.

As much as we would like to say, the majority of the world is not doing this. Embracing this fact and accepting its reality is as vital as carrying out a mission to help the world – otherwise we are simply following yet another ideal, i.e. everyone is compassionate. Instead, we have to recognize everyone has the potential within them for compassion and wisdom. What we must do then, is to discover it in ourselves, and help others discover it too. We can do nothing more, nothing less than this. No change can be forced, and no revolution in its truest sense is done by any measure of aggression. In the end, it is the human being who must awaken, and it is a realization only he can achieve. We can merely point the way, help guide them as we guide ourselves to recognizing our true nature, our innermost potential. Ultimately it is not what we must do, but how we must be.

The action will flow naturally from the being. So many of us are trying to “become” greater or achieve something at an end point somewhere – but it is in the living, the being, between the end points that true life and vitality is. We must learn this playful awareness of the present, for by doing so a great psychological burden is dropped. We do not need to live in fortresses of security, in memories and ideals – for they will take us away from this ever-living and organic state of being. Instead, we must learn to slowly, surely let the castles crumble, and embrace the present.

On the State of Awareness

2008-01-03T04:34:00.000-05:00

It is perhaps at first very arrogant to assume that there is a "state" in which one has primordial awareness. This may be so. Just as likely, however, is to assume that there isn't - and so we are faced with a false dilemna. To believe? To not to believe? What would happen if someone approached you, or even me - and stated that there was no believing or unbelieving. There simply "is." All at once, we may find ourselves questioning rational thought. Not to believe or unbelieve - then is it simply apathy? To this, the imposter would simply reply, "No, that is itself another term and condition of reality - I offer you none but reality itself."

Logic has constructed for us a rather perfect world of order. Where there is disorder? A sufficient understanding simply hasn't been discovered yet. Yet, the strange questionaire might ask us this: What happens when the mind is silent? There is no room for logic then. What is there when silence pervades? And perhaps, as a means to deepen our understanding of what it means to be quiet, we should attempt this. What is it to be utterly and profoundly quiet, as deeply so as the silence after the first snow of winter, of the ice cold plains of the arctic, or the deep quiet of a forest untouched by humanity except by your own breath?

Indeed, what good would such a quiet mind do?

Unfortunately, I must end this masquerade and reveal myself as the madman, the imposter. What this book will attempt to do, and hopefully is doing as you read these pages, is to openly play with your own concepts of reality. To lightly push and pull, untie the knots of preconceived notion so that you may also explore what it is to be human, what is to be without labels and conditions - what it is to roam freely in a land where the only fences are the ones we have built nail by driven nail. I invite you to explore further, with me, with all other readers who are intrigued by this notion. We are all too often caught in the humdrum of everyday life, of distractions, interests, falling in and out of our own awareness. What I propose with this book is absolutely nothing special, elitist, arrogant or idealistic in any way. I simply ask the reader to join me in self-awareness - to attempt to "just be," and see what may or may not come out of it. I write with this in mind, and this only. That being said, let us begin.

Orwellian Now? U.S. considered "endemic surveillance society"

2007-12-30T20:12:00.001-05:00

In a recent post on Digg.com, I found this interesting link about surveillance in societies across the world. It contains a detailed map of the level of surveillance and free speech in each nation. The United States now joins Russia, China and the UK as one of the most heavily watched societies in the world. Although we do wish to be safe, I wonder - is this the direction we wish to be heading? As the famous sociologist, Robert Merton coined the term: Have our actions in the recent years led us to unforeseen consequences?

Here is the diagram:

Forest Spirits

2007-12-24T01:23:00.000-05:00

A bit of fiction that I have attempted to write. It's a little rusty. I haven't written fiction in ages, but I hope to get back into it. Here's to tales around the shaman's camp fire . . . To the smoke in which the spirit is woven,

In the quiet of the night, a boy stood up from the side of a river. The air was frigid, and a breeze carried his breath into the moonlight like glowing smoke. Utter silence filled the forest. The animals did not stir, nor did the people who were encamped a few yards away. The sky was frosty and clear – as cold as the abyss of the stars and just as equally expansive. The boy made his way down the riverside, his hands chapped dry by the air. His focused on his breath as he approached a clearing from the brush. “This,” he said in his native tongue, “this was it.”

He took a first step into the clearing which was illuminated by the full moon. From his pouch, he removed a tiny pouch, pulling out three stones and gripping them in his hand.

“Spirits!” He requested, tossing the three stones into the air. They knocked about a rotted log and scattered on a patch of frozen moss.

“Spirits!” he shouted again.

The forest remained silent, as before.

Suddenly, the sound of cracked twig shot through the forest. The boy turned around quickly, his heart pounding in anticipation.

Silence resumed.

“Do you test me?” He inquired boastingly as his hands trembled.

The Spirits did not respond. He sighed, regaining composure and tracing his steps back to the path. He dared not speak another word.

There was the low sound of breathing about the trees, and the boy looked around again. He began to suspect he was being hunted.

The breathing stopped short. “It’s time to run!” He thought to himself. Just as he began to jog in the general direction of his camp, a voice called out to him from the clearing behind. It made no discernable words, at least, nothing the boy could understand. He turned quickly, only to witness a massive creature, as tall as, yes! Two men! With massive shoulders, as if it had wings. It had no discernable face, but it moved! Toward him, floating through the air.

Needless to say, the boy was already running – and never turned around until he made it back to the flames of the camp.

Huckabee, Is it all about honor?

2007-12-21T20:36:00.000-05:00

I've been watching the presidential debates, and I've got to ask - why is Huckabee up in the polls on CNN? Not to mention, in the following video, Huckabee practically makes a fool of himself, inciting the crowd's nationalism instead of their common sense. On the issue of the Iraq war, he makes it clear that if, "You break it, you buy it." But how does this make sense in a losing battle? We aren't in a retail store, we're in a country divided by sect, religion and ethnocentric backgrounds. Isn't it stubborn to think that we can just plow through til victory? In fact, it's downright nonsensical. It seems that Huckabee is gaining some popularity as a result of his charisma, and I do admit he has quite alot of that. Also, the meaning behind his speeches invoke a traditional pride or nationalism you would see in the United States during the Cold War or World War II. Pride, values, unity of one nation fighting to win, etc. For better or worse, we no longer live in a world where we are permitted to think in such simplistic terms without consequences. I believe Ron Paul said it best at the end of this video, when he points out,

"We have lost over 5000 americans over there... How many more do you want to lose? ... What do we have to do to save face? All we're doing is saving face. It's time we came home."

So here it is,

And on another note, here is Huckabee commenting on evolution,

Huckabee, perhaps understandably, divides the US into black and white. The athiests and secularists vs. the Christians. Buddhists? Agnostics? Hindus? Wiccans? Non-religious affiliations and countless other religions? Left out. He is promoting, once again, the traditional values and views of American culture. I don't believe he would be a good president, considering that he is not looking forward, but only backward into a world that collapsed horribly from their own simplicity. With science, civil rights, the United Nations and even the notion of an integral consciousness, the world is becoming too small and far too diverse to divide everything into left and right anymore. Any candidate who wishes to revert us back to the old days is only setting us up for more trouble. Especially in a time period where the next president will be crucial for the survival and well being of not only the U.S., but the rest of the world . . .

Foucault's Revenge?

2007-12-19T02:35:00.001-05:00

When undergoing the process of education, we are often confronted with new concepts that undermine our creativity. Instead of being asked, at this point, what direction we wish to go, we are again guided by the fatherly hand of the educational system. While there is nothing inherently wrong with assistance – one would imagine as the student reaches the maturing age of 18, they may be capable of some form of autonomy. That is – can’t we begin to make our own choices? Can we begin to be taken seriously?

And to elaborate, I wish to make a difference between two fundamentally different points of view. I am not saying: Let us do what we want! Why? Because we can! I am saying, we are able now to make independent, rational decisions. After our k-12 education, what have we learned? What are we informed about? If this is a step toward some form of maturity, should we not be able to follow our own passion? Our own talent? And secondly, do these institutions in which we trust to impart knowledge to us on livelihood, actually live up to their end of the bargain? If they do not help us gain some form of independence and creativity- or even self knowledge, what on earth are we learning?

There is a major flaw in our schools today. They are not inherently wrong, nor are they necessarily failing to understand how to impart knowledge and discipline. That is, at a particular level. What the educational system may be lacking is the ability to identify diversity of intelligence. I may be book smart, but am I socially inept? What are my strengths and weaknesses? Am I creative, logical, or both? Which is my strongest point, and which passion will drive me to succeed happily in my given field?

When we absorb ourselves in knowledge, I think it is very important not to forget the very nature of what we are doing. The accumulation of information, like a computer or database, or library of any sort – does not necessarily bring understanding or even self-knowledge. Our schools, it seems, appear to be very skilled in downloading large amounts of data into our minds, teaching us how to apply these crafts in tests. We become a kind of automaton. The more we open ourselves to the crafters, the more we resonate with their preferred attitudes, beliefs and knowledge. All the while, we believe are inheriting some form of individuality.

Yet, such an action, when it comes down to what is really going on, can be likened to a game of collectors. Everyone is given as much “stuff” as they can fit into their heads – piling it all up as uniquely and cleverly as possible. And the institution encourages this behavior, so when you’ve got quite a lot of “stuff” and have piled it as efficiently as the professor can judge, you are rewarded! In other words, you say, “My stuff is piled the best!” And argue your point.

Yet, if anyone asked: “That’s all well and good ‘stuff,’ but show me YOU.”

I’m afraid that the pile would only come crumbling down – and what would you be left with? The “student,” is itself just a label, another piece of “stuff” that the rest of the pile is tagged with. So, when someone asks you: Who are you? Are you going to give them another title, another bit of ‘stuff,’ or will you be able to answer them dynamically and authentically?

The answer of course, would be no, we are not asked to discover who we are. We are expected to decide what we wish to become. Instead, like some sort of magnet, we are expected to roll around in the bountiful knowledge they have given us and form some kind of coherent picture. There is a reason for this, and it is embedded deep in our culture: We feel the need to achieve, to gain, to become. We are not satisfied with leaving things as they are. It is considered immoral, lazy and inept. Yet, we must ask ourselves: Is this what we truly believe? Or is this all we know? Maybe there is a completely different way to grow as a human being.

Essentially, our schools work for “becoming,” but reject “being,” when in fact both are necessary parts of our existence.

The Yin-Yang symbol in America has become an icon for alternative thought. But I wonder, do we understand this symbol in its entirety, or have we ever compared its meaning to our own symbology? In eastern philosophy, yin-yang is an inseparable dynamic of both doing and being, day and night, action and passivity. It is the contraction and expansion of the cosmos in their entirety, swirling together in one dynamic whole. What our culture seems to be enchanted with is one half of the circle, seeing the world in a very specific way.

We might find it surprising to realize that the very action of “becoming,” has made a mess of our civilization. We wonder why our suicide rate is so high in the U.S., why we have a failing educational system and continuously fragmented political system. We have yet to, for a moment, sit back and observe things as they are. The tags have never been left on the table for a moment while we take in the whole picture. The importance of listening has all but been forgotten, an in its place we are shouting, quite loudly, through the process of analytical thinking and rationalization, idealization. We see through a world of labels, forgetting that all such terms are in fact created. We need them to communicate and navigate, but equally we need the value of silence – in order to listen and connect. The yang must be balanced with the yin. It is in humanity’s best interest that it learns one of the most important skills of all – silence.

Indigo Evolution?

2007-12-16T20:01:00.000-05:00

I recently saw the film "Indigo Evolution," and I must say I felt very compelled to express my reflections on this. The film set me off, and not in an positively inspired way. If indigos are meant to be "system busters," then I'm going to have to bust this one. Please bear with me. I do not mean to be attacking anybody or their beliefs, nor do I mean to sound arrogant and pompous, but at the same time I can't remain silent on this.

So what is an indigo? And, how does this documentary depict them? It provides some general concepts about indigos: they are myth busters, they are skilled in non-traditional ways, sometimes appearing as savants, sometimes as musicians. In general, they are bored with the traditional culture, they are disillusioned and are seeking new ways to live. Some of the speakers in this documentary describe every child as an indigo. Personally, I do not see this as something truly unique - it's a result of everything that has happened before, and may have something to do with bigger concepts such as the evolution of consciousness.

So, the description of what it means to be an indigo is so general, that I feel that I witnessed many individuals jumping the gun on identifying themselves with the "indigo" identity simply because they share some basic similarities. So I must ask this question: Are you truly enacting what it is to be an indigo or are you simply finding a self-image you are more comfortable with? This may seem harsh, but I feel it's an important question. Are we playing with concepts, identity and self-images instead of directly experiencing the unity-consciousness, cosmic consciousness, transpersonal states that the sages have spoken of in the past?

I truly feel that indigos are much more rare than depicted in these videos. And that many of these children are encouraged to talk like they do, and express ideas because they are exposed to them through their parents. I feel that many of the children are taught that they are special.

I wonder how many of these speakers realize that children go through their own evolution of consciousness before they reach adulthood? That we are more myth-based when we are younger, absorbing everything our parents do and say to such a level that the parents may not even realize how strongly they influence their children with ideas and concepts?

Also, the concept of the "pure" child I feel is severely mistaken. It is true that when we are young, we are not yet conditioned with society, yet at the same time, we are not like sage or the Buddha. Why is this? Because although our minds are empty and open, the wisdom and knowledge, the maturity has not yet blossomed. It is like the simplicity of a seed compared to the openness of a flower. The two are surely connected, yes! But the seed must blossom first before it is to truly shine with that potential. So then,the non-rational aspects children speak of are mistaken for the sagely, trans-rational words you would hear from, say, Buddha or Ramana Maharshi, or Rumi.

It may be true that indigos are "Older" souls, yes! But they aren't born reciting their own Rumi-like poetry. They develop into it as they grow up. They go through all the stages of development like everyone else, but perhaps at an accelerated rate.

A good friend of mine had an interesting conversation about indigos, and I'll attempt to recreate it in a discussion form:

Q: So, what do you think of the term indigo?

A: Ugh. I try not to use it. I prefer the term "HSP."

Q: HSP? You mean hypersensitives?

A: Yes, those are the only "indigos" I am willing to accept at the moment. Individuals with a heightened sensory perception. I feel that the term "indigo" i used too lightly. It's just become another ideal, like so many other things of this culture.

Q: So in a sense, it has become just like the system it was meant to break down?

A: Yes, they have just found another ideal and lifestyle to follow.

Q: But what about the description for indigo children? ADHD, child prodigies, etc. Doesn't that show some kind of wisdom? Or heightened ability?

A: You can have ADHD and not be an "indigo." That's entirely possible. In fact, there is a huge difference. You can be very talented and not be an indigo, or HSP. The world is full of talented individuals. Are we going to call anyone with any form of talent or different learning ability an "indigo?" Don't you see how this is too generalizing?

Q: * I show her the child prodigy clip from the film - the 10 year old painter* What she be a good example of what you mean?

A: Yes. There you have it. She is certainly skilled, a prodigy even. But being a prodigy doesn't mean you are an HSP or an Indigo. It just means you are a prodigy. You have extaordinary talent, but what's there to make me believe you are an indigo?

Q: Well, how about the concepts conveyed in the imagery? The poems? The discussion?

A: She is 10 years old, and although I am sure her mind is developed in certain areas most others are not, I don't feel a sense of wisdom coming from her paintings, or from her dialogue. What she is describing sounds exactly like something her parents would have told her, or something she has picked up from her time here already.

Q: So, in other words, the concepts are there, the talent is there - but the actual energy and depth, sensitivity to these heightened states is missing?

A: Basically, yes. She has talent. But I don't feel much else. You know Alex Grey? He might be an HSP. His paintings express a very heightened sense of awareness, very detailed, quite vibrant. He doesn't necessarily have to be a prodigy painter. It's the energy behind the content that matters.

Q: I see. Do you believe any children are HSP's?

A: Yes. I am one. And let me tell you, it's not always a wonder. It's very rough living in this world and being an HSP. You have to be careful, things affect you more. A funeral passed by the other day on the road, and I began to cry. I couldn't help but pick up on the emotions of the family.

Q: So an HSP is a form of "empath", and that being under the general list of things they are hypersensitive about?

A: Yes. It varies but yes. We are "hyper sensitive"on a bodily level to foods, touch, sound, hearing, smell. At a mental level we are more intuitive to our thoughts, feelings, basic ego and subconscious. And we are more sensitive to others egos, minds, etc. On a spiritual level we are more sensitive to the subtle energies of the universe.

Q: That makes more sense. So, you can't just say, "I am an indigo." or "I am an HSP."

A: Yes, but you can't say we are very unique either. We experience things that are present for everyone - perhaps more intensely, but everyone is capable of cultivating awareness. We all can simply "be" and "be aware" of this. That is what I hope others can see. Instead of putting us on a pedestal, they should just listen to what we have to say about human nature. That we are actually all one. This isn't a concept. so many of us follow concepts. You must drop your baggage in order to truly know this. There is a difference between knowledge and knowing. Too many of us are concerned with knowledge and not with true knowing, which is wisdom.

"The Integral Movement,"

2007-12-15T18:53:00.000-05:00

Writing a paper about modern movements for my sociology class, and in my research I stumbled upon a wonderful quote by Alan Watts. He describes, perhaps inadvertently the nature of what it means to be integral:

“I have been realizing more and more that partisans to opposed philosophies share the same premises, which are usually unconscious. Furthermore, as the structure of language and the learning of roles, influencing us in ways of which we are hardly aware. Thus the conventional saint and the conventional sinner, the ascetic and the sensualist, the metaphysician and the materialist may have so much in common that their opposition is quite trivial. Like alternating heat and cold, they may be symptoms of the same fever.”
-Alan Watts, "Nature, man and Woman"

And so I'll keep burning up and writing this paper. Stay tuned for more folks!

Indigo Children!

2007-12-10T00:27:00.000-05:00

So, let's take a ride in the New Age section - This way please! Step here, if you will. Strap in and get ready. We're going to tour the Indigo Section - full of psychics, transformations and new "age" consciousness. We're also going to describe what the greatest flaws, not of the children, but of the advocates perpetuated.

What is an indigo child? There is a general definition: The latest and greatest generation, starting somewhere in the late 1980's and onward. They are characteristically known for being "system breakers," allegedly having psychic ability and a deep spiritual awareness for such an early age.

Wendy Chapman is quoted here, saying

Indigo Children are the current generation being born today and most of those who are 8 years old or younger. They are different. They have very unique characteristics that set them apart from previous generations of children. The name itself indicates the Life Color they carry in their auras and is indicative of the Third Eye Chakra, which represents intuition and psychic ability. These are the children who are often rebellious to authority, nonconformist, extremely emotionally and sometimes physically sensitive or fragile, highly talented or academically gifted and often metaphysically gifted as well, usually intuitive, very often labeled ADD, either very empathic and compassionate OR very cold and callous, and are wise beyond their years. Does this sound like yourself or your child?

This definition, in my opinion, is setting up what Ken Wilber has described as a "Pre-Trans Fallacy." Basically, what is happening here is 1) the acknowledgment of true transpersonal individuals with developed spiritual intelligence, 2) the affirmation of a shift of consciousness by the later generations and 3) society mislabeling this shift for disorder (ADD, ADHD, etc).

We can understand why society would label it a disorder - any epoch does not wish to see its own end, and those within its structures will fight to defend it, because it makes the most sense to them. That's fine.

For many of us who believe in reincarnation and "old souls," it makes sense that an individual who being born again would be traveling up through the developmental process quicker. That's fine. The psychic-subtle realm of development has alot of the characteristics of "indigo" children. But this is where the pre-trans fallacy comes in to play in two parts. The first? If you have authentically developed spiritual individuals - they still have to grow like everyone else. Meaning, you won't necessarily see a child dictating the law of karma to you. We aren't born mystics, we blossom into them. This is a very old mistake that dates back even to Jung. We misinterpret the non-rational for the transational. To be spiritual, to have the capacity for wisdom, you must go through it and then beyond it. The body/mind/spirit must develop an ability to tap into the divine that is ever-present.

The second issue is still of the Pre/Trans fallacy. I am sure there are a number of individuals with authentic spiritual intelligence. On the surface level, however, the definition of an indigo child is rather loose and up for interpretation. People will and have been throwing the term around at the slightest hint of talent. Your child is a great painter? He must be an indigo! Your child told you to love everyone? Oh, that must be deep indigo wisdom! Again I am going to stress here: There are always exceptions, but I have a feeling that this, like most movements, have far rarer authentic spiritual prodigies than described. There's nothing wrong with this. We want our children to feel special, because they are special for us.

Another interesting point raised by John D. Spalding in his article, "Brood Indigo,"

The Indigo Children are supposed to save the world--just like their Boomer parents set out to do.

Could many boomer parents simply be projecting their own unfulfilled desires onto the next generation? Are they passing the torch of narcissism to their children? Unfortunately it seems highly likely that this is at least part of what is going on.

Aside from the Pre/Trans fallacy the Indigo movement is suffering from, there is also the huge load of metaphysics that come with it. Again, with any authentic spiritual experience, we mold and interpret it according to where we are from on the spiral of consciousness: What level? What line? What culture? How deep? How shallow? A number of reasons why and what the indigo children are have arisen, and I'm afraid they rely too heavily on the surfaces to ever penetrate much validity.

Entering the reasoning behind the indigo children, we find a mess of new-age metaphysics. There's nothing inherently wrong with them - crystals, light, energy, vibrations. But we have to ask: Are these taken literally? Are they authentic spiritual experiences? Is there anything more to it? Anything deeper? Is anyone trying to make a general framework we can more easily navigate with? Also, what are indigo children saying themselves? Are they regurgitating what their parents are telling them or... ?

Well, thankfully there's a little bit of light shined on this! Not by those who have profited and wrote about indigos from the outside (Which is fine, if you understand what you're talking about), but an indigo herself. Interestingly, and in a rather integral fashion, indigo Laurel Chaisson has written: "The Seven Stages of Awareness." In the spirit of other developmental hierarchies throughout history, note 7 is once again present.

Right off the bat, I'm feeling good about this,

People are their purest at birth - everything after that is downhill in most cases! All babies are born with a higher-vibrational aura… not all of them start out at the highest level though,

The stages go like this: Searching for Truth, Gathering Knowledge, Shifting, Awakening, Remembering, Becoming, Being. We already have a good start. The details of this hierarchy are similar to many traditional systems of development, even to Wilber's developmental models. They apply to everyone, but indigos in particular are noted. Anyone can be anywhere, and can go up and down depending on circumstances. Sounds dynamic enough. There is a bit of metaphysics in it, but there is a healthy balance of tried-and-tested, perennial concepts utilized to make it worthy to read.

So, diving deeper into her writing, I found this juicy bit that literally cripples the movement's leaders (People talking ABOUT indigos but not actually asking them or others for alternatives. . . and the profit just rakes in):

Don’t ask, “How do I know if I am indigo/crystal?” because that will get you nowhere. There are hundreds of characteristic-lists that apparently outline our thought patterns and physical features. Books, websites, and people are just filled to the brim with theories on what makes us tick! It’s ironic that they’ve never actually experienced what it is they have dedicated their lives to. How can someone possibly understand something without becoming it first? What psychologists, psychics, parents, and teachers see is our outside - what we allow you to see without you asking us to show you more. What we expected was that you would immediately request that we explain ourselves but for some reason this is not the case. Perhaps it is our age or (for indigos) our sometimes extreme bluntness, but the fact is that you don’t talk to us enough. Instead studies are done or parents are asked to tell our story… but you have to hear it from us because we have been analyzing ourselves ever since we first came here; it’s our job! So that’s what I’m doing.

Yes! That's what we need. So, she goes on to describe that even reading the former description is altering our perception and molding our reality. So, if it can do that so easily, what's so weird about being an indigo? She gives a few easy steps,

Step one: when you are faced with a situation - any situation at all - take the time to ask yourself, “If I were called to be indigo/crystal right now, how would I respond?”

Step Two: act accordingly.

Step Three: Repeat steps one and two.

Hey, you’re done! Now wasn’t that simple? I bet you’re surprised… most people place us so high on a pedestal that they think it’s no longer possible to reach us way up there. But we’ve been saying it all along… if you want to be like us then you’d better start acting like it!

This is at least a great start - acknowledging the existential self, how we are influenced by others, how we tend to idealize "Others," yet this "other" is closer than we think. The transpersonal stuff starts to kick in, and suddenly we start seeing into other's perspectives, and they start seeing through ours. The higher "stages" of awareness are deeper and ever present, but I think it's also important to add that we may not necessarily have the capacity to "witness" that suchness at birth- at least, not in the way the sage does. Yet the wisdom of emptying the mind is eternal. And on that note, here's a few silly videos about indigo children. I think I've wrote quite enough now. You can take off your seat belts, the ride is over!

P.S. Here are some amusing media treats on Indigos,

Bruce Lee; Integral Artist

2007-12-05T20:08:00.000-05:00

Dropping the name "integral" on anyone doesn't quite fly. It implies the ability to witness the "bigger picture" of things without needing to stuff everything into one expression. "Integral" implies a creation from a holistic and inclusive perspective. Art and writing, science and music expressed through deeper levels of understanding; this is integral. It can be a simple brush stroke of Zen calligraphy or a vibrant note on a guitar. Or in this case, a round kick performed to the face.

That being said, I would like to propose this crazy idea: Bruce Lee was one of the pioneering integral thinkers of the past century. This may sound a little far fetched. After all, images of Bruce's flying side kicks come to mind, as he mercilessly battles hoards of unskilled henchmen. Classic kung fu films, like "Enter the Dragon," "The Chinese Connection," and "Fists of Fury," are great -but what is it that even hints the word "integral" anywhere?

Well, right beneath the surface there was a man who practiced a mind, body, spirit and shadow workout. Thats right. Anyone familiar with biographies on Bruce Lee's life will find his lifestyle quite inclusive. The daily schedule included meditation, exercise and martial arts practice. All the while he was always reading up on philosophy, whether it be directly applied to his art or not. Authors such as D.T. Suzuki and Jiddu Krishnamurti were on his reading list. Not to mention, Bruce was responsible for the creation of "Jeet Kune Do," or "The Way of the Intercepting Fist."

This new "system" he described as "no system," heavily influenced by Taoist thought. As he developed as a martial artist and philosopher, he came to realize that no given "way" is complete. What one martial art lacks is what another excels. He realized early on that there could be no ultimate way, and various schools of thought, be they philosophy or martial art, are limited to their own particular conditioning.

In his own words:

Jeet Kune Do favors formlessness so that it can assume all forms and since Jeet Kune Do has no style, it can fit in with all styles. As a result, Jeet Kune Do utilizes all ways and is bound by non, and, likewise, uses any techniques or means which serve its end."

It's philosophy is very simple: There is no one way to truth, to mastery. Therefore, study as much as you can, balance your art and do not limit yourself to one particular style. Embrace what works, reject what does not. Efficiency, inclusiveness and depth are key points.

One key element that needs to be included in any integral practice is shadow work. And yes, you guessed it, Lee mentions it. The practice of martial art forces you to confront your shortcomings, your fears, your pathologies. They will arise in combat, and without proper confrontation, they will hinder your success and stunt your growth.

Punches and kicks are tools to kill the ego. The tools represent the force of intuitive or instinctive directness which, unlike the intellect or complicated ego, does not divide itself, blocking its own freedom."

The body is seen as a tool, and one of its main purposes is:

To destroy your own impulses caused by the instincts of self-preservation. To destroy anything bothering your mind. Not to hurt anyone, but to overcome your own greed, anger and folly. Jeet Kune Do is directed at oneself.

I had read Bruce Lee's work long before I stumbled upon integral philosophy. So, this suddenly hit me today as I was buying a sandwich at the deli: Bruce Lee- Integral Martial Art! There is such a thing! Integral isn't all books, books, books. Knowledge is certainly a form of empowerment and depth, but as long as that intellect is turned toward cultivating self-knowledge and transformation. Martial art, along with many or -any- forms of art, it seems, are quite capable of being wonderful integral practices. So, martial artists out there, keep kicking, keep punching, and I'll keep watching kung fu.

I'd just like to end with one last quote which strangely reminds me of something an integral philosopher might say:

I hope martial artists are more interested in the root of martial arts and not the different decorative branches, flowers or leaves. It is futile to argue as to which single leaf, which design of branches or which attractive flower you like; when you understand the root, you understand all its blossoming."

P.S. - A few treats...

Bruce Lee Interview

Training

Spirit Dance

2007-12-04T12:36:00.000-05:00

I wrote this during english class in senior year of high school. Our teacher gave us a simple worksheet with a number of creative writing topics. I chose, "The birth of the sun." Not sure why or how, but this is what stream-of-consciousness poured through. Now that I'm older and probably not wiser, it makes all the more sense and seems to confirm things I have learned.

The spirit danced in its conscious sleep, tossing and turning in one long dream, giving birth to the gods, who too were spun into the fabric of a false solidity. The gods moved the dreams, the dreams moved the gods - because they were one in the same. Soon, in the loose and serpentine illusion of time, ideas were born, creating the stars and the planets of an infinite heaven, and soon we too were born into them, and with our minds, and dreams within the dream we gave birth to all things: Night and day, blue and starry skies, moon and sun. We danced in its light, its gift of life, unaware that we too were but the dreams of a sleeping God.

Integral Life Practice

2007-12-02T15:31:00.000-05:00

Breathing in, breathing out. The steady pace, the silence between burning muscle and sweat; this is what I pause for. The expanding of the mind, the dissolving of the self- a little fortress washed away by an ocean I cannot see. Mind expanding, knowledge growing, thriving, articulating like a pine forest that just shot up from the empty mouth of a goddess.This is the practice. This is the breath. This is the mind, with each eye I thrive to see, trampling over my own ignorance, stomping out ego with reason. With my tears I crash and burn, mumbling nonsense before those who listen, and wisdom before empty mirrors. This is the practice, this is the breath.

Dennis Kucinich Speaks at Cosm

2007-12-01T23:42:00.000-05:00

Dennis Kucinich recently spoke for Alex Grey's birthday at Cosm. For those of who have not heard of Cosm,
It's a neat place localed in NYC, right by Penn Station. What is it, you ask? One of the most innovative and transformative places you'll find in the city. Alex Grey is a world famous artist, producing inspirational and original forms of art that depict both man and spirit, organic and divine nature as one. He has done album artwork for bands such as Nirvana and Tool.

That being said, it's remarkable that a presidential candidate not only acknowledges him, but is also friendly enough to speak on his behalf at Cosm. Kucinich is often the odd one out in the democratic candidates. You may recognize him due to the "controversy," risen out of him confirming to have seen a UFO. He joked about this during his speech, saying something like,

You know, he could have asked me anything else. Any important issue. Global warming? Terrorism? The crumbling US economy? The threat of our constitution being destroyed - but no. What did he ask? 'DID YOU SEE A UFO?'

The audience broke out in laughter. Indeed, what's more bizarre? The one who directs the questions, or the one who answers them? He answered yes, and you can see it here:

At any rate. As unimportant a question it was, it just goes to show the immature mentality of the media, quietly and subtly pushing out all that is questionable, alternative and thought provoking. Dennis continued by saying, "I question intelligent life in the White House."
Amen.

Alex Grey sat quietly and modestly to the side, listening in attentively for the speech. His artwork was set up all around, making the room resonate with a vibrant energy, hopefully elevating and inspiring everyone there to listen and connect.

Kucinich is one of the few folks who are not afraid to be different, not afraid to have their own path, and are quite open, willing and able to communicate with others authentically. Check out his site.

He's a vegan. He's seen a UFO. He has a plan for universal health care. The list goes on, and I encourage anybody interested to inform themselves. Especially for a candidate who barely gets the limelight, as it is blatantly wasted on celebrity candidates (Clinton and Obama) mudslinging each other into the primaries.

What are we looking for in a president? As a leader of a nation? Integrally speaking, don't we seek an individual who can talk to the varying levels and lines, states and traits that make up a nation? A president who is at least thinking at a worldcentric level. Someone who will not shine for himself in the spotlight, but serve as a beacon for transforming consciousness. During the speech, Kucinich often spoke of unity - not just theoretically, but literally - that we are all one. Art, he believed, was one medium to express this truth, and nations could not be transformed through war and fear, but communication and peace. Indeed, his campaign slogan is, "Strength through Peace."

I'll end with a little video on Alex Grey's art:

What's in a "School?"

2007-11-29T15:27:00.000-05:00

University.Look at the name. It means universal! So, what should a place like that be all about? Ask yourself this: Is your school a university?

universe ~ cosmos ~ kosmos

connection maybe?

“universitas magistrorum et scholarium” - in the academic definition. a “community of masters and scholars.” now, the word master in this context is one who is highly proficient and skilled with scholarly work. and, what does scholar mean? “Of a school.” So we have a general definition that we basically already understand.

A place where individuals learn to be masters of the intellect. Where our minds are taught to be highly proficient. Ask yourself this: Does a “university” assist in teaching us how to cultivate self-reliance, autonomy, not only good reason but an overall dynamic and intelligent mind? Intelligence has various definitions, lines and stages. A good school then, would attempt to cultivate multiple forms of intelligence. To develop scholars, masters across many different kinds – all kinds of intelligence. Universal intelligence. Hence, a university.

Now, ask yourself this one more time: Is your school a university?

Kosmic Chefs

2007-11-26T20:39:00.000-05:00

We hereby declare, that all sentient beings with the capacity to awaken others should do so. We are others, and they are us. When seeing this clearly, all other reasons fall like imaginative speculations, elaborate ethical codes flutter like butterfly wings carried harmlessly in the wind. These transpersonal domains, we hold, are of non-rational nature, as they are transrational; that being, beyond reason. Man has stepped up from the primordial soup and will gain no trophy, but be asked to give of himself, and that giving is compassion. Our evolutionary tool? Love.

So what is the meaning of all this? Why are we here? What depth, if any, is out there, in here? Who? What? Where? Why? What is my nature, and what is yours? Are there links that bind us, and are we truly separated from the elements, locked in grids of stone, granite and metal? Or, can we, and should we, facilitate new structures? Curved lines where there are straight, straight where they are curved- should we act now to encourage the collective consciousness of a society malnourished, to evolve? We hereby declare that consciousness, as is, is set back by the collective shadow; our fears, our escapes, our masks and fleeting satisfactions that only acquire a moment of pleasure before returning us to the abyss of "the unknown."

We seek to provide a platform for evolutionary consciousness. With the eye of both mind and spirit, we will open ourselves to divine knowledge, explore the nature of subtle, causal and gross energy systems in order to define and embrace a truly, "integral," system of health.

We hereby declare that the narrow lense of empirical analysis is not fit to hold its own. In fact, taken alone it only works to limit the scope of human potential. Thus it will be integrated, embraced and transcended as we attempt to discover inclusive systems of transformation.

What we are missing is good Kosmic food. "Kosmic," necessitating all aspects of "what is." Matter, life, mind, spirit and shadow. Interior and exterior. So from hence forth, we will be labeled Kosmic Chefs, using our ingredients to help all sentient beings evolve up the spiral of development, at the same time eating the fruit of the divine to dissolve ourselves into that same spirit.

Kosmic Chefs, at your service! Involution, evolution - What's on your plate?

The Great Sages; Revolution vs. Evolution

2007-11-26T02:41:00.000-05:00

A sage, "world teacher," and mystic; Krishnamurti will take all that the small self holds to value, and toss it out like a bit of dust on your sleeve. He will take value, ideals, "thought," and ego, and let it slip into the void, visibly forcing you into confrontation with fear, shadow, and the possibility of silence; love has no opposite, he would say, and indeed; the mind must be quiet in order to comprehend, not just rationally but totally, directly, what that means.
He was raised by the Theosophy society, expected to be a World Teacher and usher in a new age. But, the coming had, "gone wrong," as Krishnamurti dissolved the Order of the Star (The society built for his coming), and went off to teach without doctrine or dogma. "Truth is a pathless land," he would often say.

Looking back, we can now ask: Was Krishnamurti's teaching effective? Or did it backfire? Looking at his teaching through a veritcal scope, we can at least see where he was coming from. Non-dual, peak experiences. The silencing of the mind. The transpersonal states. Coming from this perspective, he often tossed anything less -dogma, creed, paths, time, aside for the pathless, creedless and timeless. But, was this effective? Some argue yes, other no. I'd say, a little of both! We are all at different states, different stages, different depths. One individuals receptivity to such powerful teaching that literally shakes all conditioning off of you, could be awesomely transformative. Another person? Nothing. Like a bad koan, or perhaps an over-technical prose, some of us get swept away by the language and the meaning behind the words. And that's Okay! But, doesn't that also imply that depending on where we are on the map of this evolution of consciousness, we will need different teachers? And different teachings? For exploring the non-dual states, teachers such as Krishnamurti and many others are wonderful.

Yet, depending on where we are on the spectrum, we will experience the same objective "its," subjectively. That is, we mold the experience according to our own level, state and trait. It's no wonder some of us will be blown away by the mystics, while others bored, dismissive, or perhaps indifferent. What strikes your cord? What lights your fire? Dance between perspectives, but do it to find out what resonates. Find out what energizes you and tickles your consciousness into the next wave.

So, is there any meaning to a "path," or must we discard all "means" to the pathless? Yes and yes! Ultimately, the path is released, dropped, and all of "what is," is. Non-dual, ever present, already, between the words and thoughts and before the first breath. What contemplative practices do, then, is move the mind forward, prepare it for new capabilities. What must be acknowledged is we need both evolution and revolution. Instantaneous transformation is only possible if the mind is ready to let go of it all. The mind has the potential to recognize its true nature - always! And it's always there. It's not a matter of becoming truth, becoming this or that, eventually achieving something. Nope! None of that. It's a matter of slowly, patiently, honing the body, mind, spirit to unravel itself, to release its perspectives and discover the now it's been sitting on all along.

Contemplative teachers will help you do this. Whether you're reading Krishnamurti, the Tao, Buddhist texts, Zen Koans, counting your breath, performing tantra or buying a teriyaki sandwich at subway. You start to see the buddha-state in everything. So, read on, dive in and move forward into timeless and spaceless, always and never, that is already you.

"The True Path"

2007-11-23T18:08:00.000-05:00

No words for this really. I just wanted to share a favorite Zen Koan of mine:

The True Path

Just before Ninakawa passed away the Zen master Ikkyu visited him. "Shall I lead you on?" Ikkyu asked.
Ninakawa replied: "I came here alone and I go alone. What help could you be to me?"
Ikkyu answered: "If you think you really come and go, that is your delusion. Let me show you the path on which there is no coming and no going."
With his words, Ikkyu had revealed the path so clearly that Ninakawa smilled and passed away.

Zen Koans- AshidaKim.com

Garden Narcissus

2007-11-20T11:49:00.000-05:00

Narcissus is a character belonging to Greek mythology. He fell in love with his own image, staring down at his reflection in a pool of water. He was transfixed, perpetuated by his own beauty - and in time transformed into the flower, narcissus. He grows today in the classrooms of university academia. The following story was written in response to, and as an inspiration from my english class.

"Garden Narcissus"

The professor lifted his glasses from his face, resting his eyes during a moment of silence in the classroom. The students watched him passively. Each one of them, though quietly reading, writing, listening, napping, were seeping in the knowledge. How couldn't they? School was vague and idealist, and students were like flowers in vases; it would not be long before the dye would creep up their stems and taint them in a fabricated beauty. The more vibrant the color, the more the professors would smile at their own creations. Though such beauty is brief, and in time their petals would wither and fade without their roots, who were in desperate need to touch the elements.

The professor smiled over the classroom, and continued. Like a mantra, he sung the song of academia, enchanting the garden of minds before him. They repeated the mantra in turn, and the professor was happy. Would it not be long before they were like him, he thought? Every value, every notion of autonomy would be theirs, and his mission would be complete. Yet, the horror escaped him.

Within the students lied something untouched, unburdened, unyielding. Though their hearts and minds were twisted around with the dyes that had been so carefully fed over years, they had a special gift. It was the poison drop to end the rest, and one seedling dared release the sap that would make an end of this twisted botany.

"Sir," he said. "You feed us this, feed us that. You give us dreams and knowledge, and tell us to perform our will upon them - yet you do not truly let us grow as we must - that is, free, laughing, dancing up to the sun. Have you not seen the flowers dance? Slowly, they do, and in time they thrive and spiral up and out, crawl across the ground and breathe in the sun with unseen lungs. Are we not like them? Are we not alive? Your ideals are but one bud, and it has made a horror of your stem, intoxicating you with yourself. Do you not see? There is more to life than these little dyes, there is more to life than making us a mirror image of yourself. Let the garden grow freely, help us cultivate ourselves, let our roots bind together - let our roots grow! And instead of this little garden which will soon fade, you will have, and be one with, the forest."

The professor fixed his glasses, looking down upon the seedling.

"And without my order, what will become of you? A weed, a thicket."

"A lotus! No sir, you fear the destruction of order, yet your lifestyle ensures destruction becomes us. See the forest through the trees - I assure you there is more to this garden than empty flowers. Help us reach the sun, and we will make a lotus out of mud."