Some of the people I know just don’t understand what I see in trance. To them it is a jumble of sounds created for the consumer of drugs. I myself used to feel this way. Then one night some friends from my building invited me to a Paul Van Dyke festival in Central Park. I went, and since then I have understood the method of trance.
Now when I try to convey my transformative experience I employ the magic eye analogy. You know those annoying “pictures” which seem to be a jumble of colors and shapes. Look closer! Don’t you see it? Do you see it? Do you see the statue, its right in front of you! Then exasperated you attempt to refocus your strained eyes uncrossing them, going back to a visual reality that comes naturally.
Of course for some, after a while, they “get it”. From that point on it becomes obvious, a natural trance.
Every religion and culture, Confucius, Moses, and the Sufi, ramble on about this one all encompassing consciousness, an idea that if meditated on either by spinning oneself around, not thinking about thinking , or really thinking, reveals an obvious truth. The truth being that we are really 1.
The real question, then, is how do we access this awareness? (I tried crossing my eyes while dancing in a state ecstasy.)
On the other hand if one is not aware of trance or the magic eye picture then they can never know the answer, because they don’t know that there’s a question.
What do these “one” people see? Where is the evidence?
I wonder if the Unifying Factor can be found by being aware that there is a common denominator in everything. After all if one must experience trance in order to appreciate it and stare at the magic eye to see, then to find something that is everything is a matter of just being awake.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Unifying Factor: Why we don’t Kill
Why don't we kill or steal? Because it is wrong. Why it is wrong? Because society can’t coexist, or killing/stealing hurts the living. But if the premise for not killing is human rational what happens when killing becomes rational? Take Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, or the guy whose wife was cheating on him. Each one of them claimed good (to the extent many other "rational" individuals bought into it), perhaps rational reasons to kill.
Perhaps it boils down to "we don’t kill unless we are allowed to either by our position of power, personal rational, or physiological need". But for the people out there that want to establish clauses like not killing or stealing permanently, what principles can we employ that will ensure the peace?
Yet if we are to find one universal principle that all humanity follows we need that principle to be nonhuman. After all, as the post modernist would contend, the only truth that is universal is that each individual has their own unique truth. Because humanity is inherently subjective, individuals, and I would argue communities, are unable to remove themselves completely from their empirical past. It would seem then, that there is no source for or of universal truth.
Is humanity then doomed to experience murder, and even genocide? Or is it that murder is in fact a natural occurrence that is as integral to the human as subjectivity or passion?
On the other hand if there is an entity that is nonhuman, and this amorphous being is infinite, and because it is infinite it is also eminently objective (because it is aware of every idea and experience and is not restrained by time so it also understands consequences). Can this entity be the universal source of the truth, a truth that is beyond human intervention?
If we accept this all powerful entity, are we also simultaneously relinquishing control of our own destiny?
Accepting this omnipotent presence is especially ominous and frankly scares me. Imagine that the maxim “nothing stands in the way of will” is and always was another human delusion?
(This point rests on the premise that free-choice and providence as irreconcilable. This will be discussed in the future but it is imperative to understand the deeper implications at the heart of debate around murder).
At least, though, it may offer a theoretical perspective as to why we need a higher nonhuman source, whether imagined or real.
A mirage that emphatically and objectively declares “it” is the reason why we don’t kill.
Perhaps it boils down to "we don’t kill unless we are allowed to either by our position of power, personal rational, or physiological need". But for the people out there that want to establish clauses like not killing or stealing permanently, what principles can we employ that will ensure the peace?
Yet if we are to find one universal principle that all humanity follows we need that principle to be nonhuman. After all, as the post modernist would contend, the only truth that is universal is that each individual has their own unique truth. Because humanity is inherently subjective, individuals, and I would argue communities, are unable to remove themselves completely from their empirical past. It would seem then, that there is no source for or of universal truth.
Is humanity then doomed to experience murder, and even genocide? Or is it that murder is in fact a natural occurrence that is as integral to the human as subjectivity or passion?
On the other hand if there is an entity that is nonhuman, and this amorphous being is infinite, and because it is infinite it is also eminently objective (because it is aware of every idea and experience and is not restrained by time so it also understands consequences). Can this entity be the universal source of the truth, a truth that is beyond human intervention?
If we accept this all powerful entity, are we also simultaneously relinquishing control of our own destiny?
Accepting this omnipotent presence is especially ominous and frankly scares me. Imagine that the maxim “nothing stands in the way of will” is and always was another human delusion?
(This point rests on the premise that free-choice and providence as irreconcilable. This will be discussed in the future but it is imperative to understand the deeper implications at the heart of debate around murder).
At least, though, it may offer a theoretical perspective as to why we need a higher nonhuman source, whether imagined or real.
A mirage that emphatically and objectively declares “it” is the reason why we don’t kill.
The Unifying Factor: The Hand that Chopped off the Foot
The recent UN convention was enthralled with the notion that we all must fight global warming. It is seen by many as one of the few issues where there is international consensus. This is not to say that there is equal consensus in the method of solution, or the extent of sovereign responsibility. In fact critics argue that the lack of consensus reaches deep into and partially stems from an epidemic of incoherency emerging from the scientific community. However, when it comes down to the realities of what is occurring -what some objectively minded individuals would claim are “naked facts” there is no debate. The global environment is changing (some would argue that it is not warming), no nation or scientist disputes the shrinking North Pole ice cap. At this level, there is singular international agreement. This is evident from the endless stream of head-of-states declaring their support and national initiatives to fight global warming. Russia, China, America, and Europe agree!
What then does this extraordinary providence portend? Will its potential disappear in the guise of empty words, or will nations act on the global threat? Conversely, can nations achieve their objectives by an uncoordinated response; do national borders mean anything to airborne carbon emissions? It would seem that we are either doomed to failure (whatever that may be) or have a chance of success, depending on international consensus leading to absolute international cooperation. International regulations, significant investment, and even technology sharing, are all required for this to work. It is highly questionable as to whether an institution as polarized as the UN can succeed in such an important sphere when it often does not in regards to less important matters. At the very least this is a threat that no nation is immune from, and potentially poses a danger that is catastrophic to all nations.
It is a strong argument for globalization. Indeed one can expect that if the global changes continue at their present course the international community will be forced to think in more global terms. How this will affect the move to more global perspectives is left to the imagination; however we should not forget that the current economic downturn reflects real global integration. That is, globalization is a modern evolution just as global warming is seen by many scientists as a natural occurrence, one that is inevitable. Thus the question itself evolves from the relationship between calls for globalization and climate change, to whether the global community will accept the inevitable.
Is the split in America between those who believe in divine destiny and the objective, and those who are skeptical and accept subjectivity, reflected in their positions on global warming? Can it be that those who desire to control their destiny refuse the possibility that they are not the cause of global warming? This question may give credence to the argument that global warming is a natural trend, and offer real insight into the subtle undercurrent that is once again evident in American politics.
What if the unity that is required in the face of global warming is nature telling us unify or die. Perhaps global warming in not real but the need to recognize that we are one body is. After all who ever heard of a hand chopping off a foot?
What then does this extraordinary providence portend? Will its potential disappear in the guise of empty words, or will nations act on the global threat? Conversely, can nations achieve their objectives by an uncoordinated response; do national borders mean anything to airborne carbon emissions? It would seem that we are either doomed to failure (whatever that may be) or have a chance of success, depending on international consensus leading to absolute international cooperation. International regulations, significant investment, and even technology sharing, are all required for this to work. It is highly questionable as to whether an institution as polarized as the UN can succeed in such an important sphere when it often does not in regards to less important matters. At the very least this is a threat that no nation is immune from, and potentially poses a danger that is catastrophic to all nations.
It is a strong argument for globalization. Indeed one can expect that if the global changes continue at their present course the international community will be forced to think in more global terms. How this will affect the move to more global perspectives is left to the imagination; however we should not forget that the current economic downturn reflects real global integration. That is, globalization is a modern evolution just as global warming is seen by many scientists as a natural occurrence, one that is inevitable. Thus the question itself evolves from the relationship between calls for globalization and climate change, to whether the global community will accept the inevitable.
Is the split in America between those who believe in divine destiny and the objective, and those who are skeptical and accept subjectivity, reflected in their positions on global warming? Can it be that those who desire to control their destiny refuse the possibility that they are not the cause of global warming? This question may give credence to the argument that global warming is a natural trend, and offer real insight into the subtle undercurrent that is once again evident in American politics.
What if the unity that is required in the face of global warming is nature telling us unify or die. Perhaps global warming in not real but the need to recognize that we are one body is. After all who ever heard of a hand chopping off a foot?
The Unifying Factor-To Not Love Your Neighbor as Yourself!
There is an old Judeo-Christian dictum. It is often offered in “ethical” conversation, as a principle in evaluating our actions. However is it possible? Really, is it humanly possible to love one at the same level as yourself?
Moreover, as it it so obviously impossible, why is it so often thrown around?
Interestingly what makes this principle so outrageous is that the one unifying factor of humanity is that we are separate and different. In other words what makes us human is the same thing that makes us distinct. And because we are distinct we cannot love the other like the self!
That is one perspective.
Another perspective sees our differences as a reflection of our different objectives in life, as manifest by our physical and psychological makeup. The athlete is powerful, the banker savvy, and the teacher patient. Our innate talents cause us to have different objectives. These objectives are so disparate and consuming (think of your career or lack thereof) that they define us; what makes me different is what I do.
(One can go so far and label these departments as social, ethnic, religious, geographic etc. groups,career etc.) Thus each one of these groups is made a group by their larger but most importantly discernible objective, i.e. I am American because I ascribe to certain values, or I am an employee and you are an employer.
Likewise each group defines itself as different or not part of another group because that other group has a completely different and even contradictory objective.
Now let us imagine that each group is actually working on the same objective as the next group but the objective is so large that is almost impossible to imagine. For example GM has multiple subsidiaries that all work on the same objective but never see the final product or even understand how their objective is integral to the next group's objective.
It is almost as if the hand, which uniquely can grasp, understands that it is actually part of the same entity that my foot, with its unique mobility, is. Imagine if it didn't?
Is the only difference between humanity and the body physical proximity?
I wonder, if to love your neighbor like yourself is like loving your hand as you love your foot, understanding the uniqueness of the individual objective and talents but also the larger overarching objective. If, like the body, humanity is one organism working on the same project (do we as individuals ever really know where "WE" are going), then to not love the neighbor is to not love the self!
Moreover, as it it so obviously impossible, why is it so often thrown around?
Interestingly what makes this principle so outrageous is that the one unifying factor of humanity is that we are separate and different. In other words what makes us human is the same thing that makes us distinct. And because we are distinct we cannot love the other like the self!
That is one perspective.
Another perspective sees our differences as a reflection of our different objectives in life, as manifest by our physical and psychological makeup. The athlete is powerful, the banker savvy, and the teacher patient. Our innate talents cause us to have different objectives. These objectives are so disparate and consuming (think of your career or lack thereof) that they define us; what makes me different is what I do.
(One can go so far and label these departments as social, ethnic, religious, geographic etc. groups,career etc.) Thus each one of these groups is made a group by their larger but most importantly discernible objective, i.e. I am American because I ascribe to certain values, or I am an employee and you are an employer.
Likewise each group defines itself as different or not part of another group because that other group has a completely different and even contradictory objective.
Now let us imagine that each group is actually working on the same objective as the next group but the objective is so large that is almost impossible to imagine. For example GM has multiple subsidiaries that all work on the same objective but never see the final product or even understand how their objective is integral to the next group's objective.
It is almost as if the hand, which uniquely can grasp, understands that it is actually part of the same entity that my foot, with its unique mobility, is. Imagine if it didn't?
Is the only difference between humanity and the body physical proximity?
I wonder, if to love your neighbor like yourself is like loving your hand as you love your foot, understanding the uniqueness of the individual objective and talents but also the larger overarching objective. If, like the body, humanity is one organism working on the same project (do we as individuals ever really know where "WE" are going), then to not love the neighbor is to not love the self!
The Unifying Factor: Does One Equal Infinte
What do the big bang theory, conventional religion, and the human body have in common?
They all started with the notion of one. One large piece of exploding matter, one infallible entity, and one drop of semen.
The question you many have is so what? So what if they all have a common singular beginning?
Is it that the painting reflects the artist? So that we come from one drop of semen, because nature began in one moment with one source, and is that source the one infinite being?
Then again if the painting does reflect the painter and the painter is ultimately infinite, should his or her work not also be infinite?
In other words, is the fact that we are finite evidence that our source is also finite, or that our source can’t be infinite?
Another question: how do we know whether we are finite or not?
True our body needs to eat but do we as an existing atomic structure need to eat? Once we die our body is still there, albeit decomposing, but our body needs neither sleep nor food, shelter nor family, sex nor air! Maybe we, in our entirety, reflect in some ways the infinite.
Or when we die we return to the one that we began as, one matter, dirt.
Is it that the same experiences that makes us feel finite, life and consciousness, also prevent us from truly experiencing the one infinite that is at the heart of everything?
Is the unifying factor that we all come from the same source and it is our consciousness, our physical existence, that precludes the obvious? What if we are aware that this oneness is the infinite source and if so is it interchangeable with the term infinite?
They all started with the notion of one. One large piece of exploding matter, one infallible entity, and one drop of semen.
The question you many have is so what? So what if they all have a common singular beginning?
Is it that the painting reflects the artist? So that we come from one drop of semen, because nature began in one moment with one source, and is that source the one infinite being?
Then again if the painting does reflect the painter and the painter is ultimately infinite, should his or her work not also be infinite?
In other words, is the fact that we are finite evidence that our source is also finite, or that our source can’t be infinite?
Another question: how do we know whether we are finite or not?
True our body needs to eat but do we as an existing atomic structure need to eat? Once we die our body is still there, albeit decomposing, but our body needs neither sleep nor food, shelter nor family, sex nor air! Maybe we, in our entirety, reflect in some ways the infinite.
Or when we die we return to the one that we began as, one matter, dirt.
Is it that the same experiences that makes us feel finite, life and consciousness, also prevent us from truly experiencing the one infinite that is at the heart of everything?
Is the unifying factor that we all come from the same source and it is our consciousness, our physical existence, that precludes the obvious? What if we are aware that this oneness is the infinite source and if so is it interchangeable with the term infinite?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
