Stephen's blog

More great stuff

Continuing on from 'Consider some stuff', we can inquire further about the nature of stuff.

Since it's infinitely inclusive, my choices (and everyone elses) necessarily are 'made of' this one-stuff, whatever it is.

As well as the brain matter that facilitates (filters and frames the range of) choices.

Once again, one-stuff can't be excluded from all that occurs, otherwise it wouldn't be one-stuff that is the ground of all.

btw, one-stuff is perhaps a poor description. It might better be described as one-process, or one principle.

Which ultimately validates the Theory of One and All, with both sides being interdependent, and inter-penetrating, like individual and community; hand and body, wave and particle, finite and infinite.

Category(s): 

Extraordinary denials for extraordinary truths

Recently I joined a networking group and posed the question "Will Zeno's Paradoxes + quantum theory accelerate and ultimately ‘force’ acceptance of holodynamic systems thinking?"

Given the large and consistent amount of evidence, it was effectively a rhetorical question. Yes, it's only a matter of time.

During the dialogue I offered a reward to counter the Proof of the impossibility of physical movement.

Category(s): 

Consider some stuff

I often hear of, or run across people who espouse all sorts of ... well, quite frankly, incoherent, silly ideas and beliefs.

Here's a few ideas that might reset standard thinking.

----------------------------

Consider some "stuff" of which the entirety of existence is composed. Not physical, not even necessarily spiritual. Let's just call it "stuff".

Now, this "stuff" is, by definition, literally everywhere, in everything, everyone one, every thought, God, Evil ... it's literally everywhere. In fact there is no place it is not. Given its ubiquity, we can say it is "one-stuff"1.

If we want to believe that some spiritual beings or others are not composed of this one-stuff, we need ask of what they are made. Whatever that is, it will ultimately need to be made of said "one-stuff" in that said one-stuff is the ground stuff of all existence. No exceptions.

Now it gets interesting.

Category(s): 

Immunising ourselves against fear

This evening I watched a program on television which basically was about how those who oppose immunisation (vaccinations) are rabid evil folk or some such.

The issue of immunisation (vaccination), and of children in particular, is a highly emotive one, judging by the commentary.

The arguments are the usual ones ... since vaccinations began we've seen off all sorts of horrible diseases like Polio and Whooping Cough, the list goes on.

Category(s): 

"Transcending" what exactly?

I've just listened to an audio (podcast) of some spiritual, self-development school, who talk about all the wonderful things and experiences to be had when we get to 'transcend'.

Transcending is the way forward, it seems.

Uhm, what exactly is it that we are supposed to transcend?

Presumably it is our wrong-headed egos or some such.

Only question is, does it make sense to 'transcend' anything?

Put it this way, when a young child is growing, and learning, at some point we allow them out of their baby cot (playpen). Does it make sense to say that the baby has 'transcended' the cot?{C}

Category(s): 

Men are particles, women are waves

Update (August, 2016) - see latest regarding the dynamics of gender

When writing Be and Become during the latter half of the 90's, the various revisions of the manuscript1 included chapter (Nine) titled as "Men are particles, women are waves".

However, prior to publication I had the thought (contrary to my better instincts) that the chapter would best be titled differently, to what is now "Material men, wonderful women". It was, I thought, less likely to be dismissed as 'stereotyping' people, even though I felt at ease with the "Men are particles ..." title.  "Men are particles, women are waves" quite adroitly and succinctly expresses the inherent dynamics of life towards individualism, and collectivism -- men and male animals do (as a general rule!) bias themselves towards the hard, physical, individualistic side to life (characteristic of particles). Women do bias themselves towards the soft, interconnective, cooperative, relationship side to life (characteristic of waves and fields).

Stereotyping?

Hardly -- walk down any street asking everyone encountered their occupation.  Then note the gender percentages of those in the 'hard-sciences', engineering and Information Technologies, compared with those in care services, humanities and communications.

The bias is not because men or women are 'pushed' into the various professions, or due to restrictions such as 'glass ceilings'. There's been plenty of attempts to get more women into IT, but they simply just aren't as interested ... as a GENERAL rule!. Yes, there's always exceptions, but we're talking 'bias' in numbers, of percentages, not of exceptions.

Category(s): 

Looking backwards, for control

Just ran across a wonderful quote by Harriet Rubin, which I expect will be lost on many:

"Freedom is actually a bigger game than power. Power is about what you can control. Freedom is about what you can unleash."

I found that quote while researching one by Einstein that I consider an important one, as did Einstein himself:

The most important question a person can ask is, 'Is the Universe a friendly place?"

Category(s): 

Are you a REAL doctor?

[Note: "Are you a REAL doctor?" was posted on the previous 'beliefdoctor.com' website and is reposted here, for consistency of links.]

To be a superlative Belief Doctor one must remain 'outside' and independent of the belief-systems being analysed, in order to be unhindered and free to look with fresh eyes at the assumptions and beliefs that are routinely accepted as 'fact'.

For example, in being a scientist I would almost certainly believe, like the vast majority of scientists, that physical movement was perfectly continuous and contiguous (comprising an infinite-series of "infinitesimal" increments). However, in being free from any need to abide by that root assumption (which is wrong), a good belief doctor can develop and espouse theories that actually fit the facts, as is covered in the post "The Modern Superstitions of Science and Religion" and elsewhere on this site.1

Likewise, being free of the need to believe in various religious doctrines, a good belief doctor can see the contextual nature of religion (being a product of the childhood of humanity) and offer more holistic views that accommodate both quantum theory and indigenous belief-systems.

The same applies to issues around gender. A competent belief doctor, despite accepted sociological theories, will easily "marry" the seemingly opposite characteristics of "feminine" and "masculine" with such efficacy that neither sex then need blame or scorn the other.

And a competent belief doctor will easily see the errors in, and failings of various new-age or spiritual traditions.

As a result when I'm asked if I'm actually a doctor (presumably most ask in terms of my being a medical doctor) I answer a resounding "NO, definitely not!" (for the above reasons).

Moreover to have a doctorate (or confirm publicly any qualification) would send the wrong message to those who need a new, empowering world-view. And that message is:

'You don't need anyone's permission, certificate or grade-mark to enjoy health, wellbeing and fulfillment. Your 'internal guidance system' - your inner knowing - is your highest authority. By all means get advice from others, and gain whatever qualifications are needed to operate the machinery of life (be it scalpel, jumbo jet or whatever) but for the important stuff, learn to trust yourself and go your own way. Forge your own path, be intuitive, perceptive and creative. We are each our own authority.'

If I deserve any authority it is because of the power and congruency of my ideas, and their efficacy, not on some external credential. But even then I'd be cautious and reserved about accepting any such authority, even for the 'right' reasons.

Historically we've been in a child-like state, culturally speaking - looking up to "higher" authority. We're not grown-ups, spiritually speaking, at least not yet.  We're culturally habituated to follow, and to not creatively and powerfully lead our own lives, without much care for what the neighbours might think.

When I suggest to people to "lead God" many are shocked by the sheer audacity of such an idea. They're deeply shocked by the sacrilege. But the idea of "leading God" is simple common sense ... in that God must be the All of all of us,2 and cannot be anything less, so when like children we are genuinely, spontaneously creative we lead our parents, our friends, family, and the community ... and God. That's what we call genuine creativity, when the whole of creation in effect looks on in wonderment (for where else is such wonderment to be sourced, if not within each of us).

The ultimate authority, one that could be described as a meta-authority is the creativity to forge new paths, to break new ground, to illuminate the way with our light, and to add to creation, not merely be passive, lame, "God fearing" recipients of it.

Category(s): 

Science - religiously late

simon-sinek-laggards.pngIn his entertaining TED presentation Simon Sinek1 explains what it means to be a laggard (they're the late late-adopters): "The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore."

A curious phenomenon is occurring. And it is extraordinarily fascinating to be in the middle of it, observing it live, as we speak! What's so fascinating is that the great bulk of scientific theory is now lagging well behind the advances in quantum fact.2 But for those who are lagging none of this is at all fascinating. Not in the least. Indeed, it's something else entirely.

Category(s): 

Pages