Understanding

I was fascinated listening to the fallout from yesterday's Supreme Court decision. Reading the opinions from those who were upset over it was enlightening. It so happens that in this case I believe the court acted wisely. Others think it is another step towards socialism or communism, they can't seem to agree as to which. Many seemed upset just because it was a victory for President Obama.

 

But this did get to me thinking about how we hold the opinions we hold. I'm not trying to present myself  as a great or brain or anything, because I surely don't think I am. However, there is one thing I do try to do. I try to understand all sides of an issue. I didn't see much of that yesterday.

 

If the issues involved in any controversy are not fully understood, if cliches are allowed to carry the day, it makes it hard for those who differ to come together. And we need more coming together and less polarization.

 

In my job there is a great deal of mediating conflict between team workers involved. It all starts, I believe, with trying to get everyone to look at things from the perspective of their coworkers. We should do that with life in general. Everything looks so clear and obvious when looking out of our own eyes. We forget that the same is true for others as well.

 

Our emotions cloud our vision, and I don't think any of us are exempt from this weakness. Enhancing our capacity to understand the different ways of looking at things is a very worthwhile practice. And there is no weakness involved in allowing the right to agree to disagree.  

Eyes On The SCOTUS

Okay, so today we find out what the Supreme Court thinks about so-called Obamacare. This should be interesting.

 

The mandate. It seems we have become obsessed with freedom. An orgy of freedom. People don't want anyone - especially not the big, bad government - telling them what to do.

 

If the government can mandate we all buy health insurance, then it might one day tell us we can no longer drink cola and eat junk food. Why, if the mandate is upheld as constitutional, one day the government might mandate that we all wear butt plugs every day. Right? (Sounds like the ol' slippery slope to me.) 

 

Yet many of those who are against the government's right to tax the citizenry, and who are against the insurance mandate, don't seem to have as much of a problem with the government telling a woman what she can't do regarding her pregnancy, what same-sex couples can do with their lives, and what types of behavior should be considered obscene or indecent.

 

I don't get it.

 

Anyway, surely if the insurance mandate fails, the rest of the healthcare reform will be gutted.

 

That will make happy those who think we already have the best health care system in the world. (Although I don't know any chronically ill people who think we have the best.)

 

Again, I feel the helpless spectator. I haven't been to my own doctor in years (who can afford it?) The last time I had a medical problem I went to a walk-in clinic for treatment. However the Supreme Court decides, the cost and availability of health care will still be a human tragedy. At the same time, certain monied interests will continue to get the most consideration.

 

There. This is the first political post I've done in a while. I feel dirty. The entire thing makes me sick.

I'm Trying To Build A Big Tent

Carl Sagan was certainly a great leader in the effort to promote science education, and for that I applaud him and revere his memory. Besides his life's work, he seemed from interviews and his writing to have been a genuinely nice and fun guy as well. His Cosmos series had an immense influence. He began it with the words

 

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

 

Now whatever we may think about that statement, this much I think can safely be said: it isn't a scientific statement, it is a philosophical one. It may be true, of course. But I don't think it is obviously true. I don't think it is demonstrably true.

 

When Sagan addressed a CSICOP conference in 1987 he made this statement that again had me shaking my head:

 

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

 

If one were to take this statement literally rather than as the piece of rhetoric it truly is, one would have to assume Sagan was uniformed. And Carl Sagan was not an uniformed human being.

 

Actually, in politics there is a phenomenon known as "flip-flopping" - sometimes exaggerated, but nevertheless quite real - where a politicians was "for [this or that] before he was against it." They come out quite often announcing that they have switched positions and then explain why. They leave one party in favor of another. It literally happens all the time.

 

In religious matters one who is familiar with the development of dogma see lots of evidence that religion evolves. In fact, I cannot for a moment think that Sagan was ignorant of the stir the publishing of Darwin's groundbreaking work on evolution made upon the religious minded of his day. And I'm sure he knew there were many religious leaders who painlessly embraced "Darwinism" and incorporated it into their theology.

 

When the Big Bang became established as the leading scientific model for the birth of the cosmos theologians rushed to embrace it as "proof" of God's creative fiat over the primitive mythology of yesteryear. (Interestingly this model was first proposed by the Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître).

 

Fundamentalism doesn't define religion. It is but a small and very negative aspect of it.

 

Now I could belabor this point that political and religious thinking are in a more or less constant flux, but I don't feel it is necessary. If you have studied history - heck, if you are paying attention to the trends of the day - you know this.

 

So I believe the case is exactly the opposite of the way Sagan stated it above. In fact, the very evidence driven nature of science seems to preclude any such scenario as Sagan painted: "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken."  

 

Okay, that may be the case in philosophy, but not, I believe, likely among scientists.

 

As a pantheist (or maybe panentheist) I embrace both science and theology (politics is peripheral for me). As I'm getting older and having had so many opportunities to explore, I feel a personal need to clarify my life philosophy. This blog has been a running attempt to do that.

 

Some of my friends think I should do more living and less thinking. I understand their point. But for me, living is thinking. I think they don't fully understand me. The world and its creatures fascinate me.

 

Is the cosmos really "all that is or ever was or ever will be"? I cannot help myself from wondering. At the same time I can't help doubting that any of us have the truth all nailed down. Speaking for myself, embracing both science and religion makes more sense and gives me what I think is a fuller picture.

 

All of us have some beliefs that are not beyond reasonable dispute. Shouldn't be more sympathetic to those with whom we disagree? Shouldn't we try to erect the biggest tent possible?

 

And I Wonder As I Wander

Niels Bohr (1885-1962), one of the twentieth century's most distinguished scientific thinkers, once offered the following opinion:

 

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.

 

Reality. What is real?

 

Many years ago I had a friend - quite firm in this materialist and atheistic opinion - who would surprise me from time to time with his outburst that "we and the universe may all be contained inside the pus in a zit on an old woman's nose." His version of open-mindedness.

 

Not that he seriously entertained such a thought, I truly don't believe, but he was deeply into quantum theory and helped introduce me to this strange attempt to determine what may or may not be real. We used to get together on weekends and drink and discuss such things and life in general. At the time I was in my Deistic phase, having abandoned my Christian fundamentalism. Our conversations were lively and mostly fruitless. In the end we agreed that reality was a bit more complex that our puny minds. Still, we had fun.

 

But what if "all this" is only a dream (some might suggest a nightmare) and all of us are sleeping in this same dream?

 

Like a dream, sometimes life makes sense and other times not so much. Thinkers have come up with all kinds of models for understanding reality, and none without its share of weaknesses. The more committed we become to one model or another, the more we tend to dismiss alternative views as delusions and those who hold these alternate views as deluded.

 

I clearly see organization when I look at the cosmos, but the telos (end purpose) seems unclear, perhaps even bizarre and pointless. I get frustrated. I doubt myself and doubt others. I wonder if anyone of us can be trusted in our attempts to make sense of things. Does it matter in the end whether we figure it all out?  

 

Taking part seems to be more important that figuring it all out. Still, I wonder. I still have some definite opinions about things, but I sure do hold them less tightly than ever before.

 

It's at these times when I'm low in spirit that the nonsensical or hard to understand bothers me most. I guess I crave simple things. And I wish life was simple enough to be understood. (Sigh.) 

Death Is Hardest On Those Left Behind

When I received the phone call I wrote about in yesterday's post early on Saturday afternoon, I was - strangely enough - reading a book of epitaphs. Those always fascinated me, an attempt to sum up a deceased loved one's, or even one's own, worth in this life. It was an old book and many of the epitaphs were humorous in nature. Now it seems its more popular to say that the deceased person was a beloved father, brother, and son, etc. I suppose the most poignant epitaph I personally ever saw was one I found on teenage boys grave. It read:

 

Dying wasn't hard.

Living was hard. 

 

So true.

 

However, I tend to think that death is hardest on the survivors. I can't muster any real conviction for an afterlife (although I would love to be able to). If as Ingersoll once suggested, death is at worst an eternal dreamless sleep, it can't be hard on the deceased, for they will be unaware that they are no longer aware.

 

But those of us survive, well now, that's another matter.

 

When my older brother died one of my first reflections was that now there would no more of those odd hours phone calls he was famous for making. He was my friend and confident. I sought his advice and enjoyed his insights. There was nothing we could not talk about. Each of us had busy lives, so we didn't get together that often. But the connection was always there, via phone, and we used it often. When I lost him I lost a part of myself. A big part of myself.

 

And so it is. Death changes things for the deceased, to be sure. But to those of us left behind it takes away a piece of ourselves and of our own lives. It isn't so much that these deaths of friends and loved ones remind me of my own mortality. I've always been aware of that, and my philosophy for many years has been that of living each day to its fullest. I try to enjoy literally every moment; every sunrise and sunset I take in, each meal, every sweet fragrance, each personal interaction, literally, every enjoyable moment. And I endure those less savory things as I await the next good thing. 

 

So grief, when examined, can almost seem selfish. To those who believe in the survival of death, those passed on should only be envied (unless one is bedeviled by belief in Hell). But for those of us left behind, we miss them and the hole that they leave in our lives. It hurts and causes us pain. Most of us eventually learn to adjust, but the sadness of the loss is always there. The bond of human affection is powerful beyond words.

 

As regards my friend who is now facing the end, as my mind has been flooded these past two days with my memories of our times together, I realize that I tried to enjoy every good moment I spent with her as I was spending them. The bad moments, weren't enjoyed, but dealt with as quickly as possible and then tucked away by both of us into some insignificant corners of our minds. We no longer have regular contact with one another, but I always knew and she always knew we could pick up the phone and either of us would be there for the other. Just that comforting knowledge that another special person will no longer be there, even if only as a soothing voice on the phone, is painful. I suppose that is why mediums have always been popular among the grieving.

 

Right now I'm wishing and hoping for one more phone call, one more chance to say to her again that I care and that I appreciate the difference she made in my life. And as this is such a sad topic, this will be my last post about it, at least for now. 

Life Is A Sad Play As The Stage Gets Emptier

I received word yesterday that someone I once was very close to - in fact, our lives, for a while, were quite intertwined - is in the hospital very seriously ill. Barring a "miraculous" healing, this certainly seems to be a mortal illness.

 

This lady was there for me during one of my most difficult times, the death of my older brother in 2005. She was spending the night with me when I received that midnight phone call, rousing us from sleep, that my brother was no more. She stayed with me continuously during the following days and through the funeral itself, comforting me, driving me around, and generally looking out for me as I stumbled somewhat numbly through this period.

 

We parted ways shortly thereafter, having only occasional communications since. (I'm the sort of person who chooses to remember the good as best as I can and not dwell on the negatives when it comes to the people I have known.) We would get together every now and then and talk on the phone once in a while. Finally we went on with our lives and there was only the very infrequent phone call. Obviously, our connection ran deeply and both of us felt a bond that withstood the typical romantic relationship crash.

 

This lady was always so full of fun and mischievousness (providing quite a balance to my normal stoic, serious personality), so kind, so adventuresome, so vulnerable in so many ways, yet strong in a quiet sense that allowed her somehow to roll with any hurdle that came up in this race of life. Honestly, I can't imagine the world without her. And even if we only spoke perhaps a few times a year, that bond was palpable, thus my world will be a little emptier should she exit shortly.

 

It's time like these I wish I had the solace, the confidence of a faith deeply held in a personal God who takes interest in his creatures and who might be persuaded to intervene in the course of things. Just as when my brother died and as with several other closely felt losses, I feel the pull the human heart is vulnerable to in wishing that this life might not be all, that life continues on in some other sphere or on another plane and that the good times of old might be renewed again in some future reunion. Honestly, I don't relish the thought of not existing myself, having become so accustomed as I have to being alive. I hope, but can't say I believe.

 

Since yesterday afternoon when I got the news I have been lost in reverie of my time with this lady. There are scores of pictures in albums that are put away that suddenly I wouldn't be comfortable looking at. The smiles and the sweet memories would be too painful right now. Maybe later. Much later. There are some of her personal effects packed away in a closet, memories of a time when she spent just about every weekend here with me. When we parted company I don't think either of us thought it was really for good, so neither of us made an effort to make sure these effects were returned.

 

There are also the daily reminders, a framed poem about the specialness of our friendship that still hangs in my bedroom. Beside my desk here near the west window of my living room - from whence I watch the daily sun set - is a clock she once bought for me. It has artwork on its face of a lute and a guitar, a nod to my love for these instruments. For years it has dutifully ticked away the minutes of our lives. There is so much more but it's kind of starting to hurt "talking" about it this way.

 

Our last conversation was on the phone a month or so ago. The week before last I received a nice telephone message that I retrieved when I got home from work. She was upbeat, sweet, and teasing as usual. She told me she had had a dream about me that she wanted to share with me. I returned her call but couldn't reach her. I left a friendly message. Now this.

 

The prospect of losing someone special to you is the dread of losing a part of yourself, of your past, a reminder of the fast ebbing away of your life. When my brother died I told my family that I would miss him every day for the rest of my life. That has certainly been true. I'm at an age where I'm beginning to lose more and more bits of me as those I know and are close to, who were important parts of my life, leave the stage one after another. Of course one day it will be my turn to exit. Until then the play takes on an increasingly darker tone. 

When Religion Is No More

It was Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900) who more than a century ago made the observation

Poor man! First the priest came with his indistinct notions of religion, or his cunning devices to establish and enforce his authority, and now science with a false face steps in, to rob man of his dignity, to place him many degrees below the dumb idol or among the beasts of the field, and to subject all to iron, relentless, cold, dead, and unreasoning Fate, casualty, dead mechanism.

Valid statement then, I believe, but even more to the point in our time.

 

As science began to replace the mythological framework of humanity's view of the universe, the snowball once small rolled downhill ever faster and took on more and more snow until it has become so large it threatens to roll over all of us, crushing us out of existence. 

We have attempted to gain dominion over the earth (and have made inroads into the heavens). We have replaced the gods with ourselves. In a day that has witnessed the power, terror, and danger of nuclear energy, that is witnessing an increasingly hard to deny and ignore human-caused environmental crisis, it is hard for me to think we have improved on the gods of old.
  

What is perhaps worse is what Wise referred to in the quote above. Science is increasingly replacing the spiritual dimension of humankind. We have been reduced to meat machines, and it is no wonder that such a view brings with it a certain pessimism and nihilism that strips away the dignity we have come to cloak ourselves in over the long centuries of our civilization.

 

I read an article the other day by psychologist Nigel Barber speculating that within another quarter century or so, religion will finally have been replaced with atheism. If I live to be as old as my mom is today I will likely see that take place if the prediction holds true. Of course, the death of God and fall of religion have been predicted before only to be eclipsed by a resurgence. But suppose Barber is right. Will an atheist worldview bring us a better, more peaceful, more gentle world? Can science alone bring us closer to utopia?

 

I personally have my doubts. And the many dystopian works of popular science fiction writers and thinkers could become prophetic. In which case I will be glad to be gone or at least at the end of my journey.   

Forgive Them

As a child I was deeply impressed by the story of the crucifixion of Jesus as told in the Bible. I was moved when as the Roman soldiers were pounding the nails into the flesh of Jesus, he was busy praying that God would forgive them.

 

I thought of that as I've followed the story of school bus monitor Karen Klein, a 68-year-old grandmother who was verbally crucified and cruelly harassed by a small group of middle school students, and learned that she is refusing to prosecute these very disrespectful children and doesn't want to see them charged. (Punished, yes, though she isn't sure how; but that no doubt with any eye toward character development and improvement.)

 

As Mahatma Gandhi reminded us: “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.” 

 

The cell phone video of this dastardly incident has gone viral on the internet, or so I've read. But I saw it on the evening news. It broke my heart. 

 

Bullying is getting a lot of attention these days and has always been a problem. It is a symptom of a sickness the human soul can become infected with. Unchecked it can turn one back into a beast worse than our most ancient ancestors.

 

The Huffington Post reports that Anderson Cooper devoted time to the Klein incident on his Cooper 360 program. Two of the tormentors apologized. One saying:

 

I wish I had never done those things. If that had happened to someone in my family, like my mother or grandmother, I would be really mad at the people who did that to them.

 

Yes, my cherished One Commandment - treat everyone else with the same dignity and respect you would like to receive from everyone else. If we all would do this everything would be so much better in this world.

 

Another apologized:

 

When I saw the video I was disgusted and could not believe I did that. I am sorry for being so mean and I will never treat anyone this way again.

 

There is some food for thought for all of us there. Most of the time we don't have the opportunity to see an instant replay of our baser moments in order to reflect on ourselves at those times. At the end of every day we should hold a mirror to ourselves, to our actions over the course of the day. We should look long and hard and honestly. We should take stock daily if we are being the people we want to think we are. If we are failing at this, we should dedicate ourselves anew to the task.

 

How is it so easy to forget that we all are one? If you hurt your brother or sister, you hurt yourself. Only the person who lacks empathy - or at least a sufficient dose of it - can be cruel to his fellow man. Being self-centered in natural enough. We live inside ourselves and view the world solely through our own eyes. But to overlook the fact that we are all related is inexcusable. The older I get the more firmly this truth takes hold of me.

Dabbling At The Seashore

I read lots of books about lots of different subjects. If you have a pet theory or opinion on almost any subject you can easily find scholarly authority for it by searching the card catalogue at your local library or - better and easier still - by doing an online book search.

 

For example, if you want to find the orthodox view of science, there is no shortage of text books that will present it cleanly and with an air of finality.  

 

On the other hand, if you hate being confined in a small box, there are books by folks - holding degrees, not just cranks - who will present alternatives to orthodoxy. Like Erik Learner, holder of a BA in physics from Colombia University and author of a book with the bold and startling title The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe.

 

Whoa. Now I'm no scientist and am unable to give a scholarly opinion as to how credible the plasma cosmology of Learner and others is. I'm just pointing out that there is more than one way to view almost any aspect of life, and that is true even among the well educated authorities. It sort of reminds of something the old scientist/mystic Isaac Newton said: "To myself I seem to have been as a child playing on the seashore while the immense ocean of truth lay unexplored before me."

 

Again, there happens to be online a delightful little exchange of ideas about a mathematical/statistical problem now well-known as the Monty Hall dilemma. It pitted genius Marilyn Vos Savant against, it would appear, the majority of authorities on such matters. You can read about it by clicking this link.

 

And notice, please, how the authorities can't resist chiding Marilyn in their disagreements and attempting to insult her ability to render her a valid judgment:

 

There is enough mathematical illiteracy in this country, and we don’t need the world’s highest IQ propagating more. Shame! - Scott Smith Ph. D., University of Florida

 

May I suggest that you obtain and refer to a standard textbook on probability before you try to answer a question of this type again? - Charles Reid, Ph.D., University of Florida

 

I am sure you will receive many letters on this topic from high school and college students. Perhaps you should keep a few addresses for help with future columns. - W. Robert Smith, Ph.D., Georgia State University

 

How many irate mathematicians are needed to get you to change your mind? - E. Ray Bobo, Ph.D., Georgetown University

 

You made a mistake, but look at the positive side. If all those Ph.D.’s were wrong, the country would be in some very serious trouble. - Everett Harman, Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute

 

Finally, after some back-and-forth like the above - and this was being played out in the national newspaper supplement Parade magazine - Seth Kalson, Ph.D., of M.I.T. wrote Marilyn: "You are indeed correct. My colleagues at work had a ball with this problem, and I dare say that most of them, including me at first, thought you were wrong!"

 

Then there followed a stream of letters from startled school teachers who had performed this little experiment in their classes and confirmed Marilyn's verdict.

 

But please, follow the link I gave above and read this fascinating exchange.

 

Well, unlike some matters, the above was an example of a dispute that could be put to a definitive test. Some matters are not so easily tested. And there it seems to me to be wise to skip any "victory" laps. 

 

But my post isn't about science or the scientific method. It is about the hubris of authorities in general. It is about the fact that we humans have a general tendency to mistake conviction (and sometimes downright stubbornness) for proof. And if we can find authorities who champion our pet ideas, we rest so much the easier. While, like Newton, it seems even the best of us are only dabbling at the seashore. 

Can We All Just Get Along? (Updated)

 No, Rodney, we cannot. Ours is the great nation of rugged individualism, where I takes the preeminence over we. Our history has been marred by wars - even once almost coming apart as we fought among ourselves over the issue of slavery. Today, if we are to believe the rhetoric, we are faced with the choices of either going back to "old ways" that brought us the present distress or turning our country into a  socialist state. Not much thought about compromise. Civility is fast going the way of the dodo bird. Can we get along? Nah, too many don't seem to even want to try.

After his video taped beating by L.A. police officers in 1991 sparked an outrage across the land which led to a very unsatisfactory jury trial of the officers involved, which controversial verdicts led to riots, Rodney King finally stepped to the microphone and in an effort to turn the page on this ugly chapter asked, "Can we all just get along?"

Those words immediately became fodder for the our nation's comedians and eventually became something of a national joke.

King made sense to me back then and his words still resonate with me today. Unfortunately, Rodney King - who drowned in his swimming pool yesterday at the young age of 47 - did not live to see us learn to get along with each other. I'm satisfied this great hand-holding and singing of Kumbaya will not come in my lifetime either. In fact, I'm fairly certain that universal peace and the recognition of the universal brother- and sisterhood of all humankind is a pipe dream.

It pains me very much to say that.

After thousands and thousands of years of evolution our species has not evolved to the point of recognizing the survival value of learning to simply agree to disagree, and to concentrate on common ground rather differences.

We can get along for the most part with our family, with our tribe, with those who we are in association with who hold our particular life philosophy, but the guns are ever handy to be aimed at those who dare to differ. Okay, sometimes we just use our fists and claws. Most often we stick with using our tongues to belittle and berate our "opponents." But allowing for variations on common human themes? No, we can't seem to master that.

Human nature is truly a devil's fart.

Update: I feel like adding an additional thought to this post after seeing some of the comments that have come in so far. I guess I did end on a sour note. That shouldn't been taken as my having decided to throw in the towel. Much the contrary. I smile at strangers and plan to keep doing it. I try to mediate disagreements among my coworkers, friends, and family and plan to keep doing so. This blog will continue to function as a call for a spirit of kindness and broader understanding. I stand convicted for the some of the times in the past when I fell short there. I will try to the best my ability to preach compassion and understanding to everyone I come in contact with who will listen to me. I'm all with the old saying, "better to light a single candle than curse the darkness."
   

Now those of us who feel this way will likely fail, especially for the foreseeable future; yet that is no reason to quit or give up. In fact, it is reason to try all the harder, I believe. Healthy self-interest has a place, no doubt. Unbridled greed and selfishness, however, only sets us back on the path to our pre-human roots. We are thinking animals, tool-making animals (and I think machines are extensions of tools, and can be a sources for greater good if used by those with just hearts), we are - so far as I know the only religious animal (if you stumble at the word "religious" substitute spiritual instead). And I'm not talking about God or supernaturalism, but morality and ethical behavior, about the highest ideal we can reach for.  By that I mean we have the ability to look at the big picture and see that if we all pull together we can accomplish some amazing things. Divided, of course, we will continue to fail and to war with one another.


So, yes, human nature sucks and our work is cut out for us. Now that we realize that, let's all get busy and do what we can to overcome the odds against us.

A Word To My Friends

Every so often one needs a break, a change of routine. I've taken a little unannounced and, honestly, unplanned hiatus from my blogging. I had some personal issues I had to deal with, not the least of which was taking some extra time to just rest and relax. Also, I wanted some time to think about my blogging - do I still have the desire to blog? Have I gone as far as I should with my current blog? Is it worth the time I invest in blogging? In other words, should I quit altogether or just start a new blog with a new direction?

 

Okay, here is what I have come up with. My blogging is about having a place to vent or just roll out thoughts I am having in order to receive feedback from my esteemed cyber friends. Without my reader friends this endeavor would mostly be a waste. Looking back over my archives, I'm sure there are some posts I would probably not want to revisit; but mostly I see just a few things I wish I had handled or wrote differently. Overall I'm satisfied with what I've written.

 

You see, it's been a balancing act with me. I've straddled this fence between a romantic outlook on life and the so-called "scientific worldview." There are old posts where I expressed an unease with the trend towards reductionism as an end in itself and the resultant dwindling of life's enchantment. I've been uneven on this, I know. However, it seems to be my best experience that with a lot of things the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I won't give up the quest for scientific understanding, but at the same time I refuse to narrow my thinking to the point that I become an anti-religion fundamentalist in the same sense that I spent the first two decades of my life as a religious fundamentalist.

 

There are those on the science side who would attempt to limit the boundaries of what is acceptable to think about the same way there are religionists who want to arbitrarily limit certain behaviors under the guise of righteousness and morality. I reject both approaches.

 

Now frankly, I've been heavy on the criticism of fundamentalist Christianity more so than other religions. The reason being that fundamentalist Christianity is the worldview I departed from in my young adulthood. That form of religion had a big impact on who I was and still affects me in subtle ways to this day. I evolved slowly to a more deistic understanding of God. Then later, as I drank deeply from the wells of information about scientific materialism and atheology, I began to gravitate towards another type of fundamentalism.

 

But pendulums swing and reverse course. I slowly came back around to thinking deeply about the fact that there is something rather than nothing, that we are part of a grand cosmos, which Merriam-Webster defines as "an orderly harmonious systematic universe." Is this by accident or "design"? I don't pretend to have the final answer to that question. I'm more than willing to accept either conclusion in the end. But I deeply enjoy studying this fascinating world of ours and the interesting people in it. And the greater universe (or multiverse?) is still yielding further secrets and mysteries the deeper we probe. I honestly find myself coming back around to a religiosity - or as it is becoming more fashionable to speak of it, spirituality - that I find both personally satisfying and uplifting Dogma (religious or secular) interests me not at all, But the freedom to think freely for myself without the need to hold fast to any orthodoxy is exhilarating. I think this blog with its open-ended theme is more than suitable as a forum for this.

 

I'm proud of the fact that my readers come with various outlooks, spiritual, atheist, agnostic, etc.  I wouldn't want it any other way. I've nothing to sell and am not trying to organize a church or society, so this can be a place where we can interchange ideas and criticisms and perhaps have some fun and gain some insight in the process. No sacred cows are allowed and no idea is off limits of discussion, at least so far as I'm concerned.

 

I have toned down my political thoughts, however. Today perhaps more than ever the lines of political philosophy are severely and distinctly drawn and this in a way that I think is unhealthy. There is not enough room for disagreement and compromise. Politics has become too religious and religion has become too political. Our current political system is outrageously corrupt and I tire of having my intelligence insulted by the "spinmeisters" be they on the right or the left. I feel the need now to just focus on the individual issues and how they are being addressed rather than becoming a partisan. Over and over I've watched people toe a party line when it was obvious that deep down they thought more broadly about things than their political orthodoxy would allow. 

 

Through it all I just want to exercise my right to think for myself. I want the freedom to doubt and question even those who are considered authorities. Being wrong in thought is not a crime or sin. Following the crowd or being peer-pressured into acceptance without thinking for one's self ought to be considered a personal sin. What is also extremely objectionable is the intolerance of the "orthodox" thinkers against those who hear the beat of a different drum. The grand story is still in the process of being written. There is still much to be learned. Every age seems enlightened to itself, and only after the passing of centuries is that arrogant assumption adequately taken to task.

 

Finally, I have to decided at least for the time being to post less frequently. Perhaps not more than every other day or so. That isn't a hard and fast rule, though. I'm just quitting the daily blogging for now.  The blogosphere is a busy place. I have trouble keeping up my own blog and following my friends who have blogs. I'm sure that is a common problem. As most of you know, I am a bachelor who lives alone so I do have considerable free time for blogging. But I need to get away from the computer sometimes. I've enjoyed my little break, but I don't want to lose touch with my friends here. As always I welcome any feedback you folks might care to send along. 

 

Ray Bradbury, Master Of Imagination Dies

Not that it was unexpected of someone ninety-one years of age, but the fertile imagination of writer Ray Bradbury has been quenched by death. Bradbury is typically classified as a science fiction writer, but he seemed to style himself more as a writer of fantasy.  

 

His Ray Bradbury Theater brought his imagination to the small screen. I own the complete series on DVD and enjoy watching these stories often. The movie adaptation of his Something Wicked This Way Comes stands as my personal favorite Bradbury tale, and from what I can tell is also a favorite of many lovers of fantasy and scary tales. 

 

Hugh Hefner, who was known to use Bradbury's fiction in his Playboy magazine well stated that "he will be missed."

 

I often think about what a drab existence this world would be without the ability to take occasional flight from it through the medium fantasy. I also think imagination is wonderful and very constructive tool. Perhaps nothing is a bigger bore to me than the person whose thinking has become fossilized.

 

Rest in peace Mr. Bradbury.

I Talk To My House Plant

I have a grand total of one house plant now. I used to have more, but now it is just this single vine-type of plant that was given to me many years ago by a sweet lady friend who is now no longer a regular part of my life. It was a birthday present sent to my place of work and I cherished it then and still do now. I desperately need to replant it with some fresh soil. I've been procrastinating for too long about that. I can't really say exactly why I gave up on plants. But the one I have gets my full attention now. So I need to get off my butt and buy a bag of soil and take care of my friend.

 

Scientific American has just published an article that really held my interest, even though it is a bit long. Check out Do Plants Think? and let me know what you think about it. This is about a new book by the director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University, Daniel Chamovitz. The article states:

 

A plant, he [Chamovitz] argues, can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way.    

 

Nature loving Pagan and Pantheist that I am, I am thrilled to think of the implications of this. For some time I have contemplated the notion that mind completely permeates nature. In fact, more and more I lean towards the proposition that mind is all there is, much as expressed by the physicist Arthur Stanley Eddington: "The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind...the stuff of the world is mind-stuff."

 

As one might expect there is a horselaugh contained in the comment section. One reader offered:

 

Reminds me of an episode when one of my sister's boyfriends visited the family and started on the topic of plants being able to "feel." After listening politely for an extended period of time my brother said "Yeah, last week there was a forest fire on television and all the plants got up and ran out of the room." End of conversation.

 

Yawn.

 

The more I study nature the more deeply I am moved in a spiritual sense. I am saddened by the general attitude of neglect and indifference towards the environment so commonly expressed by many moderns as opposed to that of the ancients, who felt embraced and nurtured by her.

Nah-Nah

You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it. - Carl Sagan

 

 

Yesterday I was telling one of my coworkers about the program I watched on Sunday concerning Voodoo. She is a strong believer of the magic of Voodoo - not the religion, because she thinks it is part of what she calls the "dark side." This because, she tells me, she saw it "work" once on a neighbor who died shortly after a roots worker sprinkled some concoction around his house and "cast a spell." So afraid is she of this Voodoo that she turned down my offer to lend her my dvd, even though she said it sounded interesting.

 

Of course you folks know I live in the Bible Belt, where supernatural things are happening everyday. Here evolution is "just a theory" and demons strive against believers all the time.

 

Just about everywhere, I suppose, the lottery is played by those who believe in luck. Good luck charms are worn and bad-luck activities (like walking under ladders and stepping on cracks) are religiously avoided.

 

And I'm sure all of you have heard that 9-11 was really an inside job, right?

 

Lots and lots of strange things are thought to be a part of the universe. Lots and lots of strange things really are a part of the universe. There is more we don't know, it seems, than what we do know.

 

So there are plenty of opportunities to give the old horselaugh to people who think differently than we do. And if you are like me, you are often the recipient of it.

 

Making fun of people for what they think or believe, I'm convinced, doesn't work as a strategy for encouraging broad thinking. Neither does a petrified mindset that refuses to challenge one's own thinking.

 

What does work? Mostly nothing. People have biases and those are usually deeply entrenched. But a little non-condescending discussion can go a long way, at least in getting people to entertain alternative ways of thinking about things. Hey, and a little humility on our own part can only help. "To err is human," haven't you heard?

Mystic Lands Tour Completed

I had a very full weekend, beginning Friday with a very early work day and continuing on with several errands after work. Then I had several other appointments and obligations which took up the bulk of Saturday. So yesterday I decided to just relax, and realizing that I had arrived at the last disk of my six-dvd set of the Mystic Lands, popped it into the player to finish it up. 

 

This last disc contains two programs, Anasazi: The Ancient Ones and Haiti: Dance Of The Spirits. I found it extremely interesting because, in the case of the first program, I love anything dealing with the Native Americans, proudly having Cherokee blood in my veins; and the second program examined a subject that has always fascinated me, Vodou (voodoo).

 

Who were these mysterious Anasazi, or Ancient Ones, who flourished from 100 to 1300 A.D. and then suddenly and inexplicably vanished? The only extant writings of the people, stone carvings known as petroglyphs, hark back to their reverence of the sun and the moon. Peter Pino, a leader of their descendants, the Pueblo, explains:

 

Everything has a spirit. A rock, a tree, humans, animals. As a result, we treat everything with respect. We know that there is a source of being beyond what the eyes see. The sacredness of the earth, we refer to as mother earth. We have the sun, that's the father, and the father that comes out at night is the moon.  

 

This programs introduces the viewer to the lore and legends of the Anasazi. It speculates that a severe drought in 1276 to 1299 A.D. may have forced the relocation to the Jemez and Rio Grande Rivers of New Mexico. Crumbling ruins provide a backdrop for a study of the religious and cultural backgrounds of these people.

 

And the narrator closes with:

 

Even in their worn, eroded condition, the ruins still rise like stone altars, monuments to the spirit of the ancient ones.

 

Many questions remain unanswered, but this journey was, for me, truly fascinating and worth the time invested.

 

Turning towards Haiti, I wonder how many associate Voodoo with black magic and Satanism? This program explodes this stereotype, established chiefly in modern times by the overwrought imaginations of Hollywood movie producers and writers as well as writers of horror comics and stories. We are shown that not only is Vodou a religion in its own right, it is also an all encompassing worldview for the Haitian people. And even though Christianity has attempted to stamp out the practice, Vodou survives and even thrives. We are even told that in Haiti, 80 percent of the people today are Roman Catholic, but 100 percent espouse Vodou - the religious symbolism and iconography simply being appropriated and reinterpreted.

 

It is explained, in case you are wondering, that

 

The roots of Vodou go back hundreds of years to west and central Africa. During the 17th and 18th centuries, European settlers forced thousands of slaves across the Atlantic to work the plantations of Haiti.

 

This programs gives a good if concise overview of the worship among the Haitian people and concludes:

 

Haiti is a land of contrasts. Poverty and oppression are facts of life.

 

Politics are uncertain. Crops are meager, and hunger is commonplace. Yet through faith, people have found the will to survive.

 

Some rejoice in the soulful passion of Protestant Christianity; others, in the prayerful visions of Catholicism. But more than anything else, Haiti is alive with the powerful mysteries of Vodou - the "Dance of the Spirit."

 

This program held my attention from start to finish and all points in-between.

 

As a bonus on the disc the director Chip Duncan is interviewed and gives a brief background of what went into the producing of this series. He gives his views about man's enduring search for spirituality and how he attempted to document it. This is a rather short bonus but worth watching for a general overview. Sacrifices and compromises were made, corporate interests were a part of that, and Duncan explains the hows and whys, In the end, he was still able to pull together a helpful and enlightening series. 

 

And now I am happy to unreservedly recommend this set to anyone who finds the human spiritual quest interesting. If you just want to know more about the world around you and the people who share this splendid planet with you, this will serve those ends as well. 

Coincidences And Deeper Implications

Can our finite minds every fully understand the amazing cosmos of which we all are a part? Just the fact that we are thinking beings in a comprehensible universe strikes me as an amazing thing. It seems that it did Einstein, too, for he said that "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." For all the knowledge we have gained over the centuries and the vast number of things we know, we haven't got it all figured out yet, nor can we say we are close to having it all figured out.
   

Some three decades ago I slowly began a journey away from what is typically considered a supernatural understanding of the universe (strong theism) to a more natural worldview, pantheistic or panpyschistic - for want of a better label. I can't say I'm totally comfortable standing where I do today, and certainly I am not closed-minded. One thing I have never been able to rid myself of is this niggling feeling that there may be a deeper reality in all of this. Of course, maybe not.

I can't recall exactly when I encountered Carl Jung along the way, but some of his insights meshed with a lot of my niggling suspicions. The world of Synchronicity and oddball coincidences always fascinated me. As a child in school I eagerly waited for the next edition in the popular Ripley's Believe It Or Not paperback series, which only fueled my ideas about possible deeper implications for reality. Jung at some point in his life entered into a collaboration with renowned physicist Wolfgang Pauli in order to flesh out a synchronistic view of reality. The result was interesting to me, but I admit not conclusive. (And I still enjoy Ripley's Believe It Or Not.)

The greatest coincidence of all, it seems to me, is that we live in a universe that has been described as fine-tuned or apparently fine-tuned. Some fight that concept tooth-and-nail. If you are really into speculation, the multiverse concept has been employed in order to give an explanation of why with countless other universes having popped into existence along the way maybe it isn't so strange that our unique universe popped into existence. According to that line of thought it was almost inevitable.
  

I don't pretend to have the brain power necessary to assess all the arguments pro and con and then come up with a considered opinion. It's enough for me to keep an open mind and try to keep my intuitions and gut-feelings somewhat in check. In the meantime I will continue to read and try to learn, but most importantly, try to keep myself from falling back into some form of fundamentalism, of reaching a conclusion that is THE conclusion and which must be defended and protected at all cost.

It doesn't hurt me to say "I don't know." And allowing myself the freedom to entertain alternative ways of looking at things is fun and liberating as well.

And speaking of coincidence - real or imagined - I want to tack on below an introduction from on article on the subject that was printed long ago in Harper's New Monthly Magazine Volume X, December 1854, to May 1855:

There are a thousand mysterious circumstances occurring every day of our lives, the solution of which philosophy fails to reach. And because this is the case, the wise heads dispose of them in a very summary way, by denying the facts.

There are a thousand strange and mysterious sympathies linking us with each other and drawing our hearts together, so that, even when separated far away, we often have the same thoughts and feelings at the same precise moment of time. The same sigh heaves breasts ocean-wide apart, when the same longing desire springs up for communion face to face. And these, these same philosophers dispose of quite as summarily, by calling them "striking coincidences"—as if this were any explanation of the phenomena.

The wildest dreams of the night are not more wild and strange than those traits of the human mind in our waking hours, and which, unaccounted for as they may be, still demonstrate to us a hidden chain of sympathies running down the whole course of life, and binding our hearts together. Call them by what name we will—they are still there, and still the same. We can not get rid of them by denying their existence—and it does not explain them to call them "coincidences."