Buzzword Books - unusual, intriguing, intelligent, perceptive

Here, you'll find musings from our authors and staff. We don't promise daily updates. Just posts worth your time.

Wednesday, 30 June 2021

WHAT DO WE BELIEVE?

 Here is the third chapter of the book currently being drafted by Clinton Smith. Enjoy.

 

What do we believe? Generally, just about anything we're told.

We can fervently believe any piffle, poppycock and balderdash. 

We can believe in atheism, spiritualism, cargo cults ─ in literal interpretations of the devil, heaven, hell. We can believe that God is on the side of our armies, that he notes the sparrow's fall, that human sacrifices placate him, that killing infidels is his wish.

Once we believed that the sun moved around the earth and that we were the centre of everything. 

In 1492, clerics believed that an all-loving, all-forgiving God hated heretics. So, they stretched them on the rack or burned them at the stake. 

Today, Muslim martyrs wearing bomb-belts believe that, if they incinerate a crowd of non-believers, they'll go to paradise and be pursued by 72 concupiscent virgins. 

But even fanatics can't believe in a purposeless universe and still believe in 'God'.
When science dumped understanding for knowledge, it sabotaged religion. And when religion abandoned insight for belief, it became equally uninviting. Science can't see the wood for the trees and religion can't see the trees for the wood. So, both now inhabit a wasteland of blowing paper and dried bones. 

It wasn’t always this way. 

Long before the Dark Ages, the knowledgeable ones were, at once, priests, scientists, alchemists, natural historians and philosophers. Whatever we now think of their notions, their search was integrated by the striving for a single world view. 

In ancient Egypt, Greece, India and medieval Europe, science was an aspect of religion and psychology — and remained an integrated study even as late as the 1500's.

For instance, Descartes, was an engineer as well as a philosopher. He studied optics and analytical geometry. He formulated the First Law of Motion before Newton did and repudiated magnetism, gravity and action at a distance. He thought that inertia made bodies persist not in a circular but a straight motion and that planetary orbits were the result of vortices in ether. He reduced the world to particles whose only reality was extension in space and motion in space and time — a sally at physics that so pleased him that he hoped to complete it entirely by himself. As a philosopher, he believed that the idea of god implied his existence. Today, despite his flawed assumptions, we would call him a Renaissance Man.

The Cartesians (those with notions deriving from Descartes) saw animals as machines. They believed that the human animal, however, was fitted with an appendage called mind. And that God was still around somehow, tacked onto the system.

Then Newton worked out that planetary orbits were governed by gravity and centrifugal force. His billiard-ball universe was accurate enough to be a benchmark for 200 years. His Laws of Inertia, Acceleration, Reciprocal Action et al banished mystery from the cosmos. But he was still unable to account for the precise movement of the planets. So, he considered God a corrective force guiding the worlds. He was, in fact, a Deist — believed that a divine mechanic governed the machine. 

Darwin, who wrote The Origin of Species was also vexed by a meddlesome god. In 1860, in a letter to Asa Gay,  he wrote, 'I cannot think that the world as we see it is a matter of chance, and yet I cannot look at each separate thing as the result of design. ...I am, and shall ever remain, in a hopeless muddle.' The whole point of his thesis was that variations were not directed. In a letter to Hooker in 1856, he cited, 'the clumsy, wasteful, low and horribly cruel works of nature.'

Although Darwin hardly used the term 'evolution', the dumbed-down popularisation of his theories has become the non-thinker's mind-worm — the vaunted 'theory of everything'. We now believe in progress, the continual advancement of knowledge, the progressive refinement of politics, conduct and social systems. Even though bald evidence shows the futility of these views.
Take progress, for instance. Are things really developing, getting better, or merely becoming more complex? Every innovation creates six more insoluble problems. Technical advances are matched by an increase in generalised stupidities. Such as the scores of SSBNs (Ballistic Missile Submarines) lurking in every ocean, ready to vaporise the world's cities. 

As for the advent of social media, the internet and instant communication, its data gathering and manipulation is deeply destructive. It creates multiple problems such as identification and information theft, scams, bullying, fake news, propaganda, and increasing slavery to IT technology. And incites an abnormal world-wide reaction to a single local stimulus. 

Everything is designed to be engaging, to grab and keep our attention — to commodify our love of gossip, sensationalism and hyperbole. To waste our time and dumb us down. To manufacture compulsion. The need to click produce an instant dopamine hit. If we engage with social media for ten minutes, our oxytocin level soars. 

At last count, forty-eight countries have at least one government agency engaged in placing blatant falsehoods on social media and engineering consent and dissent. Shady media outlets on corporate payrolls fabricate doubt, disorientation and distraction. They control information through the censorship of outlet-swamping or 'noise'. This promotion of mistrust, fear, disinformation designed to manipulate thought and behaviour is now a profitable market using the methods of advertising and PR. The appeal is emotional, compulsive, addictive and amplifies negative traits. Advertising, of course, is propaganda. Not truth but hype.

This destructive digital gully-trap promotes conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, deep fakes, confusing 'facts' and fiction. The constant bombardment of tainted 'leaks' makes us question the validity of all media. 

With the internet now manipulated by pressure groups, multinationals and state autocrats, the upshot is social divisiveness and public chaos. Monopolies such as Facebook and Twitter pay lip service to removing tainted accounts, but are acutely aware that this cramps their bottom lines. So, as long as gathering subscribers is their business model, malicious actors will continue to thrive.

Meanwhile adolescent girls are given the chance of indirect aggression, the ability to shame and belittle with 'who's in, who's out rants. Adolescent boys are fed first-person war games that have been found by psychologists to promote callous indifference.

Everywhere you see agitated, self-promoting zombies shackled to their cell phones, compulsively micro-managing their profiles. Long before such technology was invented, Reich was already talking about, 'Compulsive, contactless sociability.'

The 'evolution' mind-worm also prompts us to believe that life started from inorganic matter, or arose spontaneously from amino acids in the oceans of the primitive earth. This assumption fits a barren cosmos devoid of sagacity or purpose because it negates all semblance of design. It means our presence here is incidental and reduces us to sophisticated apes.

The materialist, Hobbes, prompted this comment from a complaining theist: 'The root of all atheism consists in making senseless matter the only existent thing.' 

Despite such protests, God is no longer 'needed on voyage'. Knowledge and reasoning are enough. We believe in appearances only and believe that life can be organized through science alone.

Scientists believe that the whole can be understood by examining its parts. Their method isolates things from their surroundings. It separates items that can be weighed, numbered and measured from things that can't. It works in stricture of useful abstractions and finds in these fragments no meaning or design. But the layman, believing the analysis inclusive, accepts that view automatically, no matter how much clerics argue that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. 

But can one really explain anything in terms of itself? Is it credible that nature created itself — was self-derived? That matter created matter? Can we, for instance, by dismantling a radio, extract the music and voices it emits? Or extract thoughts by dissecting the brain?

So, as the gap widened between science and religion, the inner and outer aspects of cosmology became progressively opposed.

As science began to learn more and more about less, the less it understood. But it knew enough to shred believers in benevolence from above. It reduced the hierarchy that had guided our values and equated religion to a childish fiction equivalent to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. 

In a godless world, we became governed from below — by isolated objects, genes, atoms, blind laws of attraction, random forces... By an automated cosmos and closed system. Meaning became meaningless. 

Meanwhile, the remnant of religion, still convinced that 'design' required a vaguely anthropomorphic deity, closed its cage of thought in defence of its beliefs. 

Now, the literalists who still attend its temples are well-meaning people with conventional minds snared by self-comfort, establishment and routine. Or those having a bet each way. Or doing it for the kids. Or emotionally cathartic happy-clappers swaying to the rants of money-motivated 'prosperity theology' evangelists.

But beyond the churches, mosques and synagogues are still a reticent few who covertly believe that there is 'something out there'.

Is

Monday, 22 March 2021

WHAT DO WE THINK?

 Our last post was actually the first chapter of a forthcoming book by Clint Smith. Here is the second. Now read on:


We have reviewed the mystery of existence from the scientific aspect. However, physicists are not the only specialists studying the nature of reality. The riddles of cosmology and consciousness also exercise philosophers. 

Here we find monists, dualists, pluralists. And, in the Western tradition, sub-categories such as epistemologists, idealists, logical analysists, positivists, empiricists, existentialists, phenomenologists, postmodernists, utilitarians… All have notions about the world, mind, existence, conduct and morality, generally expressed with a sophistry even academics find obscure.


 There are more than a hundred established philosophers in European history and to catalogue them opinions would need a second book. So we have selected a representative few who tried to fathom the enigmas of reality.


We will leave Socrates and Plato for the present and begin much later with the first of the early modern philosophers, Descartes (1596-1650). He was a dualist who believed in two substances ─ mind and matter ─ and is known for his assertion Cogito, ergo sum. (I think. Therefore I am.)  This maxim is derided by quietists who point out that discursive thought is a barrier to consciousness and that 'I think. Therefore I am not.' is closer to the truth. While this is obvious, it is also out of context because Descartes first established the fallibility of sensations. He said that our senses were too limited to experience reality.  And, as it was possible to think independently of sensations, he reasoned that thought, and thought alone, proved that he existed.


Spinoza (1632-677), a neutral monist, believed in one supreme infinite substance named god or nature. Contrary to Descartes, he believed that this was a material entity and that mind and matter were aspects of the same substance. All was god or nature. 


Leibniz (1646-1716), an idealist and theist, claimed that everything must have a reason for existence. And this reason must lie in something outside the world of appearances.


Berkeley (1685-1753) claimed that we have an intuitive knowledge of ourselves and that 'To be is to be perceived.' Therefore, there was no such thing as matter. As matter was inert and senseless — neither perceived itself nor was perceived — it simply didn't exist. Then where was a bucket, for instance, when no one perceived it? Ah-hah, said Bishop Berkeley, a benevolent God perceived it and so it was sustained by the mind of God.


Hume (1711-1776), an empiricist and sceptic, had a secular philosophy and doubted human experience could yield knowledge. He disputed Berkeley's claim that we had a self and said that we are nothing but a bundle of perceptions ─ that we know the mind only as we know matter, by perception. Therefore, the mind is merely an abstract name for ideas, perceptions and feelings. As mind does not exist, reason is no final test. He said, 'If we take into hand any volume of metaphysics, let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number. No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter or fact or existence? No. Commit it then to the flames for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.' 


So, for Hume, mind did not exist. And, for Berkeley, matter didn't either. As one wit said of them, 'No matter. Never mind.'


Enter the Prussian philosopher, Kant (1724-1804) who rejected both empiricism and rationalism. He said that the apparent world derives its structures from the nature of the mind that perceives it. 'What objects may be in themselves remain completely unknown to us. We know nothing but our mode of perceiving them.' He said that the world is an appearance constructed by our minds and that there must be some kind of reality beyond the phenomenon. This would be the thing in itself — the noumenal — but that we can never know this reality.


Therefore, cosmic conundrums are beyond us. Space and time, he said, are not things perceived but modes of perception. So, for instance, when knowledge tries to decide whether the universe is finite or infinite, the mind rebels against either proposition.  
Similarly, the question of time, and whether all we know had a beginning. Just as we can't conceive eternity, we can't conceive a first cause because a first cause uncaused is inconceivable. Is there an escape from these blind alleys? Kant said there is. It is to remember that space, time and causation are modes of thought and not external to our limited perception.
Equally, he said, religious concepts can't be proved by theoretical reason. He contrasted the symmetry and unity of nature used by religion to indicate creationism or supernatural design with the other side of nature — waste, duplication, suffering and death. He considered design no proof of providence. For him, design was internal design — the design of parts of the whole. He then attacked the concept of life springing fully formed from dead matter. This can't explain, he said, the growth of even a single blade of grass.


So Kant, at one swipe, deconstructed science, religion and the mechanistic view of evolution.
Later philosophers such as Heidegger (1889-1976) claimed that existence is fundamentally a 'being there' which is entangled in the world that surrounds it and that the part serves to disclose the whole. He coined the term Dasein, meaning the being which we ourselves are, or the primacy of being in the world. Our being, he said, is grounded in what we do, culminating in a stoic reverence for the possible, despite the meaninglessness of life and the inevitability of death. 


Then came the pessimism of Schopenhauer, the nihilism of Sartre and the romanticism of Nietzsche. The 'death of God'. The primacy of ego and the will. Man stripped bare — thrown entirely on his own resources.


We again became lone truculent voyagers in the arid waste of space and to think otherwise was a dream. An impractical ideal. Humanism now paralleled the purposeless universe of science, providing thin gruel indeed for the young and impressionable mind. Even theism's emotional nourishment dwindled.  Western thought foundered on the unyielding rock of despair.
 
So much for the thought-addled West. The East had a different approach.


The Vedic sages (1500BC) were concerned to discover the one thing, which if known, could allow them to understand everything else.
By disciplining the mind, they intuited that nothing is separate. They said that only Brahman, the supreme entity, is real. That 'Thou art that'. And that the Self is Brahman. That when the separate observer disappears, our innermost essence is revealed as identical with the Unformed, beyond time space and causality. 


The Hermetic view coincided. The tablet of Hermes Trismegistus (127BC) states that all things come from the One and from the mediation of the One and have their birth from it by adaptation. As above, so below. That which is above is the same as that which is below. And its force is above all force, for it vanishes subtle things and penetrates all solid things. And that we need to separate the subtle from the coarse.


Lao Tzu (around 300BC) asserted that non-existence is not equivalent to nothingness but is the condition before existence came into being. That existence and non-existence are co-dependent. 'The wheel is useless without the centre hole in the hub.' So the sage should see, as his inner goal. absolute vacuity. 'Forever tarrying in purposelessness.' He who knows himself is enlightened. Not knowing that one knows is best.
'He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know. The great Way is always inactive yet there is nothing it does not do. All things come from existence. And existence from non-existence. By non-action everything can be done.' 


The Buddhist Mahayana teachings (100AD) include the seminal Heart Sutra which states that form is not other than emptiness and emptiness not other than form. That all things are marked by emptiness — not born, not destroyed, not stained, not pure, without gain or loss. 'This is truth,' it adds, 'not mere formality.' 


The sutra's connection with quantum states has been eulogized by New Age enthusiasts. It also coincides with Vedantist and Taoist views. Buddha refused to engage into the cosmological speculations of his disciples, declaring them 'matters not conducive to edification.'
Plotinus (204-270) said that an ineffable 'One' structures all existence. And that this being/non-being is everywhere, nowhere and beyond all language and thought. But, as it wills itself to lower graduations of unity, it becomes multiple and material. And that the undifferentiated unity can be experienced intuitively by a person able to strip themselves bare of all concerns and concepts.


Shankara (686-718), who reformed Hindu philosophy, said that the objective universe has no real existence. That the ineffable is reality itself and that it intrinsically has no diversity whatever. That it is stainless, indivisible, unbounded, unmoved, unchanging, beyond all action and absolute, without beginning or end. That the world is nothing but utter consciousness, knowledge and peace. That the cause of our bondage is the mind. And a pure mind leads to liberation. That the aim of the philosopher should be to free his mind from all distractions, to attain dispassion and bask in the consciousness of the ineffable.


Avicenna (980-1037) a Muslim born in Bukhara, said that we know we exist and that existing things come and go. They do not exist by themselves so arrive through a cause. And, as a chain of causes cannot be infinite, they must end in a sole self-subsistent entity. This is considered, by Islamic scholars, as a proof of the existence of God.


The Sufi poets (1000-1029) used mystical analogies to express their ecstatic cosmology:


The Centre is within me and lies as a circle everywhere about me.
I am the Merchant and the Pearl at once.
Time and space lie crouching at my feet.
I plunge into myself and all things know.


There is none but Him. But, alas, no one can see Him.

First you must cross seven oceans and a very long road.
Then a fish will draw you to him — such a fish that
When he breathes, he draws into him the first and the last.
This marvellous fish has neither head nor tail.
He holds himself in the middle of the ocean.
He sweeps away the two worlds
And draws to himself all creatures without exception.


There is a fundamental difference between Western and Eastern views. The Western approach is intellectual — the mind fussing with the attempt to rationalize infinity. But the Eastern approach doesn't start with the mind at all. It begins with quietening the thoughts and attempting to be present enough, nakedly aware enough, to arouse raw insight and intuition.
Kant, for all his intellect and sincerity, never achieved this insight and never met anyone who had. So it may seem odd to see his conclusions equate with Sufi mystics, Plotinus and the Vedanta. 


Gurdjieff, the monumental being who changed Eastern insights into Western terms remarked, 'If Kant had introduced the idea of scale into his arguments, many things he wrote would be valuable. This was the only thing he lacked.'


The idea of scale? 


This is expressed in the Hermetic teaching, 'As above, so below.' This cryptic statement needs to be investigated or, as people now say, 'unpacked'. It means that, if everything is an aspect of the One, then the individual is the Universe in miniature. That the Microcosm mirrors the Macrocosm — of course, on an infinitesimal scale. 


According to this theory, we are an image of the universe and subject to the same laws. And that, by studying ourselves in depth, we will be able to understand everything else.
Is there any evidence for this view? There is in so-called esoteric teachings where methods of practical psychology (the 'how' of religion) have presumably been preserved.


Maharshi: 'When the creature sees and knows himself without attributes, that is knowledge of the Creator, for the Creator appears as none other than the Self. The whole cosmos is contained in one pinhole in the heart.'
Shankara: You yourself are the non-duel Brahman, spotless like the ether, without inner or outer, without attributes, changeless, timeless, without dimensions or parts. What else is there to know?
Attar: 'The Centre is within me and its wonder lies as a circle everywhere about me. I am the merchant and the pearl at once. I plunge into myself and all things know.'
Zen Master: 'You must realise that the centre of the universe is the pit of your belly.'
The New Testament claims that the Kingdom of Heaven is within us.
And so on and so forth.
This brings us to Plato's teacher Socrates (469-399BC), the man who said, 'Gnothi seauton.' 'Know thyself.'  
Do you see the implication?


It suggests that we cannot know anything by simply thinking which is, at best, a peripheral, superficial process that occupies one aspect of ourselves. But if we truly are the Microcosm, the mirror of the greater world, by looking into ourselves profoundly, we can understand the cosmos. 


Here is an extract from a book of Eastern wisdom, quoted by Gurdjieff:

'To know means to know all.
To know a part of something means not to know.
It is not difficult to know all, because in order to know all one has to know very little.
But in order to know that little, one has to know pretty much.'

Hence the assertions of the Vedic sages.
By truly knowing ourselves, can we understand all?
Is the way in the way out?





 

Tuesday, 10 November 2020

YOUR INTRODUCTION TO THE INEXPLICABLE

 Author Clinton Smith reviews why we know nothing at all.

 WHAT DO WE KNOW?

Little. Because our minds are too limited to understand what there is — or what, where and why we are.
You disagree?
Then, ask yourself, why is there anything at all? It's a question posed down the centuries by scientists and philosophers alike. Why, for instance, is there not simply nothing? Surely that would make more sense?
But I see and feel that I exist.
Can I trust that?
My perception is far less acute than many other animals possess. For example, I cannot see the infra-red range like some insects. My eyesight is not as sharp as an eagle's. My sense of smell is hopelessly inferior to a dog's. Despite these limitations, I appear to be here, standing on this planet and have the impression that I, and everything around me, is physically real.
Still, where did this everything originate?
And why?
Religious minds believe the world was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god. If so, where did he/she/it come from? Does she have a daddy? And where then did he come from? It is a conundrum as unlikely and unanswerable as the ancient assumption that the world is supported on the back of an elephant standing on a great turtle. And what supports the turtle? Easy. There are turtles all the way down.
Einstein tells us that mass is equivalent to energy and warps space. And that light and gravity are quantum states. And that, if we travel fast enough, we will be shorter and time will slow down. All this is exceedingly strange but demonstrable. We can fathom its implications, intellectually at least.
Then we are assured that we live in an expanding universe that started with a bang.
Started with a bang?
How?
Either something came from nothing. Or something was eternally there. Because both are impossible, this is clearly beyond our capacity to process.
The current thought experiment represents the universe as a dotted balloon. The dots represent galaxies. As the balloon expands, the dots widen and become further apart. This model, by the way postulates that the universe is all there is. In other words, outside the balloon there is nothing. The balloon is all — and therefore all of space is expanding. So before the balloon arrived, there was nothing. No time. No space.
But the universe is not merely expanding. Its galaxies are flying apart with greater and greater velocity. Why? Surely, after the bang, they should be slowing down?
No. The further they are from an observer on earth, the faster they recede. Eventually they will travel so fast that their light will no longer reach us.
So what makes them accelerate? Possibly dark energy. Dark energy of roughly the expected magnitude was detected in astronomical observations in the late 1990s. Apparently 96% of the universe is missing and contains dark matter we cannot see at all.
So as the galaxies fly apart forever into endless space, where are they expanding to? Infinity?
Surely space must end somewhere? But, if it does, what is beyond or enclosing it? Infinity is as illogical as a finite universe. Our minds cannot grasp either alternative.
Similarly, time must have a stop. And if it does, what happens then?
Another theory says that if we could fly fast enough away from our galaxy in a straight line, we would arrive back where we started. This model of the universe loops back on itself like a donut. Then what is outside the donut? Impossible again.
Back to the expanding balloon.
It was a singularity, we are told. An instant explosion from nothing.
But how can something come from nothing?
Enter the 'multiverse'. This is pictured as a series of soap bubbles. Bubbles forming from bubbles. And our universe is just one of these bubbles. Where, then, did the other bubbles come from? This explanation simply moves the process back one step. In other words, it is as sophisticated as 'turtles all the way down'.
An alternative is the 'many worlds' theory which considers the branching possibilities of all actions. It's where every possible outcome of a quantum event exists in its own universe. You may therefore exist in many duplicate worlds all superimposed in the same physical space but evolving independently. In some you will be successful and rich. In others, destitute and ailing.
By the way, parallel universes are not a theory but predictions of other theories. For some theorists, then, they are inevitable — the only conclusion that makes sense.
So?
The universe is impossible. We live in a miracle and think it normal.
Then there is the riddle of life. Where did it come from and how is it supported?
Let's tackle the second question first. The Strong Anthropic argument says that we live in a Goldilocks zone fine-tuned for life. It raises a question. Why is our universe so well suited to us? Because if any of the fundamental constants of it changed slightly, we wouldn't be here. Which brings us to 'supersymmetry', which proposes that every particle in the Standard Model has a massive 'shadow' partner with properties vastly different from the particles we have found. And that these particles are possibly the source of dark matter. Supersymmetry suggests that universes with a low degree of supersymmetry contain atoms, molecules and complex life. So, many universes might be habitable. And that absolves us from being so special. Of course, in the scale of time that comprises the lifetime of the sun, the entire duration of life on earth is an event as brief as a passing bird. On the smaller scale of our planet, we are invisible, immaterial nonentities with lifetimes a hundred times shorter than a spark.
But how did life appear? How did something living erupt from barren rocks, sands and chemicals? Biologists have puzzled over this for centuries. As cells are too complex to have formed all at once, it must have begun with just one component. So researchers have spent decades trying to get RNA to assemble or copy itself in the lab. It is like assembling a load of bricks and expecting them to morph into a house.
Did life emerge, then, fully formed? This seems even more unlikely but some are now reluctantly admitting that this explanation is increasingly more credible. It suggests that life didn't begin on earth at all but was delivered by meteorite from elsewhere in the universe. This still doesn’t explain its genesis — how it first appeared.
And what are we in all this mystery?
A person standing vertically on the earth?
Hold that thought for a moment. What is this 'person' composed of? We are a miniature universe, inhabited by ten times more bacteria than we have cells. And our billions of cells comprise trillions of molecules and a staggering number of atoms. An atom itself is primarily empty space because between its particles are huge distances. So, on the quantum level, we do not even exist. Then there are quarks, leptons, hadrons and a zoo of other unlikely entities with existences so brief that our instruments can barely measure them.
On the quantum scale, matter does not subsist in a deterministic form but rather as a collection of uncertainties. The Copenhagen Interpretation asserts that quantum systems exist in a probabilistic limbo until observed. And only when observed do they attain a definite state. This is termed 'superposition'.
Superposition is now challenged by 'quantum entanglement' or particles related at a distance. If you have one entangled photon or electron on earth and its equivalent on the moon, their spin factors switch instantaneously. In other words, faster than light speed — which, incidentally, is 186,000 miles per second. But as nothing travels faster than light, this is clearly impossible.
How could two such particles, separated by 250,000 miles instantly communicate? But they do. It's called the EPR Paradox, and will become the basis of quantum cryptography.
This demonstrates the non-locality of the physical world. It means that the universe is interconnected, interdependent and inseparable. Take this illogical statement just a little further and you have 'moment eternity'. Everything that ever was, and will be, exists and is connected in this present moment.
A parallel here in scripture: 'Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.'
Then there is String Theory which calculates that the universe has ten dimensions of space and one of time and allows for a number of possible universes, each with different physical laws. Why time? Because space and time, according to the Special Theory Of Relativity, dissolve into one entity. One physicist equates mass to the fifth dimension. This makes the big bang an illusion. But string theory is the neatest mathematical paradigm for uniting general relativity with quantum mechanics. It is an attempt at a 'theory of everything' and suggests that all possible universes actually exist.
And will they exist for ever. Or will a big crunch collapse them back into the void?
Curiouser and curiouser!
The summary?
We are less than nothing and know nothing. And live in a gigantic miracle that is incomprehensible, inexplicable, unfathomable.
The strangest thing of all?
Most of us don't even think about it.
A last word on the subject from Hui-neng: 'From the first, not a thing is.'

Monday, 21 September 2020

A CHAT WITH RUPERT

Thriller author Clinton Smith recalls an early encounter with Rupert Murdoch:

After almost sixty years, memory becomes uncertain. It was a different world then. By today's lack of standards, gauche and almost innocent. 

Rupert Murdoch was then a young man whom circumstances had made the proprietor of a tabloid called The Mirror ─ his sole claim to notoriety, or so I recall.

Smith was the downtrodden presentation writer at a nascent government monopoly TV station called ABN2. 

We were attending a media seminar at Armadale University ─ Rupert as a guest speaker and Smith as a member of the audience.

After Rupert's presentation which was direct and unpretentious, we chanced to meet on the terrace, both cradling cups of coffee.

I told him where I worked, and that Channel 2, like all ABC cadres, was a quagmire of bad art, nepotism and bureaucracy. Which, by the way, hasn't changed. It's an outfit that has never flown. You can't fly with just one (left) wing. 

I also mentioned that I was on the books as Temporary Auxiliary and that promotion was mythical unless one was elevated to the permanent staff.

Around this time, the staff of the ABC put on a review. A vain attempt, like all of them, to get noticed and curry favour. The set piece was a ditty sung by we underlings. The words are seared in my mind till this day.


When you're working
For the ABC
You must live on humble pie
And wash it down with tea.
You won't get promotion
No matter how you try
Till you savour all the flavour
In the taste of.
Hu… hu hu hu…
Hu hu hu…
Hu hu hu hu hu hu hu..
Hu hu-mble pie.


So the sentiment wasn’t mine alone. Although I didn't mention all that, I said enough to make the point. I can't recall Rupert's response. I think he just listened. 

Next day I was back at work and thought no more about it.

The Wednesday after the encounter, the Mirror had a story on the plight of ABC staff underlings and how the auxiliary staffers were exploited and locked out of the promotional process.

This surprised and delighted me. But mostly, it revealed the man.

Rupert listened to me. He didn't say much. Just listened.

A sharp mind there.

And now, when we are both ready to fall into our graves, I want that recorded.

Redundant, you will say? Surely now everyone knows that Rupert is sharp and the consummate newspaper man.

Perhaps. But not at first hand. 

Rupert listened.

And good for him.

You can find Clint's books on Buzzword. 

Saturday, 22 August 2020

The power and puzzle of attention

 John Alexandra, author of The Wisdom of Being, talks about attention:

 Can you pay attention? It is a payment. Make no mistake. Intentional attention, that is. But first, we need to define it.

There are three kinds of attention. Directed. Attracted. And Dispersed.  

Dispersed attention: is when our wits are wool-gathering. The mind daydreams or is in neutral, with every stray thought running through it. The earworm of a popular tune. The remembered conversation. A recalled scene. In this state, you walk into a room and can't remember what you intended to do there.

Attracted attention: is the type that occupies most of our lives. It could be quite useful and productive. You work at your computer but completely vanish into the job, concerned with the next click. Hours pass. You say you are concentrating. In fact, you are subsumed into the activity ─ a function of it. Not there at all.

Or you watch TV and completely vanish into the program. The moving wallpaper on the screen occupies you entirely. If it is particularly soporific, your attention changes to dispersed and soon you are dozing or asleep.

But generally, your mind is occupied constantly with uncontrollable fixations on people, situations and events. What she said to me. Why they're not giving me a raise? My receding hairline. How X can afford a better car than mine? Heartburn or angina? How to fool my wife into thinking I'm at a meeting when I'm shacked up with my secretary? A million concerns ─ leading to resentments, expectations, fears, regrets, affronts, anxieties, forebodings, envy, anger… 

This we dignify as thinking. In fact it is reaction ─ the attention attracted by a hundred useless things. In this state, we are not individuals. Just mechanisms. Machines. But, of course, we never admit it. Because to see this clearly would lacerate our precious ego.

Directed or Intentional attention: is rarer than hen's teeth. It is when the mind is silent and aware. This state is never automatic and requires long and careful training, then constant, voluntary vigilance. In other words, an effort of will. To be intentional, I need to be behind my manifestations and not affected by anything external. I can no longer just exist. I need to be here. And this level of alertness demands psychological death. 

Perhaps, in a moment of despair or self-loathing, you’ve attempted to stop your thoughts and noticed that they never stop. Because the next moment you are thinking of stopping your thoughts or plagued with the thought behind the thought. Sometimes it is possible to stay for a moment in the space between two thoughts, but the mechanism never flags. You can't stop thought by taking thought because thought is the problem ─ the net. 

So what in you, in me, can possibly put a stick in the spokes enough to stop them?
Nothing less than death in the moment. The death of everything I value as myself.
If I can climb down in myself to the point where I am content to be just nothing, possibilities begin. The energy wasted by thinking begins to accumulate elsewhere in the body. I begin to fill up. And that process is so interesting that for a moment I exist on the knife-edge of pure observation. Sensation/intuition/insight become physically present and for a few breaths I am nothing ─ but I AM. Yet even that is imprecise. 

There is no 'I' there. 

Just AM.

And, next moment, I think again and am dispersed. 

But if I can experience that insight once, I will have an impression that is irrefutable.  Something I cannot deny. An objective experience that is true.

And perhaps, if I really wish for something, I can come to it again.

All true things begin as flashes. But to make them consistent takes intentional effort over years. Perhaps over lifetimes, some say.

You can find John's book on Buzzword

Tuesday, 28 April 2020

ALTZHEIMERS? OR TOO MUCH VITAMIN D?

Red alert! Red alert! Is your old mum tearful? Repeating things? Can't find her keys or purse? Disoriented? Confused? Bewildered? And also being treated for osteo-perosis? Warning! Warning! Don’t put her into aged care. Read this incredible cautionary tale now from our resident medical-savvy author, Martin Jensen.

The love of my life is now 76. Twelve years ago, she went to a specialist for the treatment of osteoporosis. This physician - a woman as it happens - recommended a regimen that included 4,000 international units of vitamin D a day. So, she started taking two 1,000 mg capsules morning and night. 4,000 mgs bd – the maximum allowable dose.


Eventually, she noticed a change. She couldn't focus her mind properly. She misplaced things, became confused, seemed to be operating in a fog. Naturally, this distressed her. She tried to conceal it, dreading it. It seemed like the onset of old-timer's disease.


People around it noticed it, too. The neighbour. The handyman. Friends. And I, who see her frequently, noticed it most of all. At first, it was a slight concern. This strapping woman losing her marbles. Because, in all other respects she was fit. (Unlike yours truly, who has survived a stroke and is on rat poison to thin the blood.)


Slowly, her bewilderment got worse. She constantly forgot things I had just told her. She announced, as if it had just occurred to her, something she had told me four times before the same day. She became tearful, afraid she was losing her mind. For instance, she could no longer remember where the NRMA office was in the village though I reminded her several times and had to drive her there myself to prove it existed. In short, she had all the symptoms of advancing Alzheimer's. It made me sad and apprehensive. I was losing the woman I loved.


Then, a month ago, she happened to visit a website called everydayhealth.com. she continued on, as it happens, to /drugs/vitamin D.
It gave the following listing:


Tell your doctor if you experience any of the following side effects:
•    Kidney stones
•    Confusion or disorientation
•    Muscle weakness
•    Bone pain
•    Weight loss or poor appetite
•    Extreme thirst
•    Frequent urination
•    Nausea, vomiting or constipation
•    Fatigue


Bombshell! She had several of these symptoms. Principally fatigue. But the one that staggered her was 'confusion'.


She couldn't believe it! Vitamins were harmless enough, surely. Apart from Vitamin A and too much Selenium. 


CONFUSION?


She immediately stopped taking the capsules.


For a week, there was no change. Then, slowly, her fog lifted. The process took several weeks. Now, a month later, she is back to normal, knows precisely what she is doing, feels competent again, has regained her commendable objectivity, something I have not seen for years, and in all respects, has her marbles.


Comment: If you or a loved one are experiencing any of the above symptoms, check it out with your GP. Don't assume it's just part of the aging process. 


Comment 2: Consider all the thousands of women over 70 on osteoporosis medication. They are precisely in the age group most vulnerable to Alzheimer's. But how many actually have it? Could it be simply an excess of Vitamin D?


Now, consider your old mum. Have you checked her Vitamin D intake lately? Before you consign her to a home for the bewildered, DO IT NOW!
 

 

Read Martin's book. Link here.

 

Saturday, 15 February 2020

CERAMIC GLAZED WUNDERLICH ROOF TILES: $1 EACH

THEY'RE BARELY USED AND BEAUTIFUL. AND IF YOU LIVE IN SYDNEY, THEY COULD BE YOURS.

We have never posted an ad on this site. This is a flagrant exception. 

One of our authors lives in Chatswood West and owns a house with a granny flat extension that was wrongly constructed with a roof slope so shallow that the tiles didn't shed water enough. This sufficed for some years due to heavy tar sarking underneath. But when that degraded, he bit the bullet, removed the tiles and replaced them with a corrugated metal roof.

Since then the tiles, neatly stacked, have been sitting for years at the back of his property. they are probably worth $2,50 each but he is willing to let them go cheap.

Particularly after the recent storms which have brought down trees on houses.

So if you need a few, or many, just ring him.

He has a wheelbarrow but the terms are strictly cash and you will need to transport them yourself.

Ring him on 9419 7966.