I kind of surprised myself when I reread the little blurb that I wrote underneath the discussion flow chart.  What the heck is a "holographic discussion or argument"?  I've never come across that term before.  (I'll Google it and see if anything comes up, but I wanted to put forth my idea before seeing anything else.)

   So, a hologram is a representation or picture of an object made with two beams of light with the image being recorded using the interference pattern created by the light beams.  Maybe that's a little complex, but the important bits are that it is the result of an object being scanned by two or more beams of light and the image being the result of an interaction of these light beams, rather than a simple capture of a single light beam.  The result is a 3D image of the object rather than a 2D image, shifting as you change your viewing angle.  Another unique thing about holographic images is that all the information is recorded in every part of the image, so if you break the photograph into five pieces, you end up with five complete pictures. 

   So, what's a holographic argument?  One of the things that I didn't like about the discussion flow chart was is that it only allowed for whatever the "rationalist" defined as rational thought, which would probably be classical logic, cause and effect, Newtonian and Cartesian scientific method.  That seems to be a bit narrow for my liking.  It's kind of like someone telling you that the whole world is red, but saying that you can only look through red coloured glasses. 

   The alternative, as many of you know from my previous ranting, is looking at things through an Integral Model, a la Ken Wilber.  The importance of which model you use to view reality is critical, as was recently asserted by Stephen Hawking in his latest book.  Any experienced phenomenon, even those recorded by scientific instruments, is subject to the subjectivity of the observer, their conceptual level of understanding and the filters through which they interpret everything.  In Wilber's Integral model, rather than throwing this subjectivity into relativistic chaos, it becomes organized into a hierarchical meta-model, which would take pages and pages to properly explain.  Those interested can find out more HERE.

   Like the holographic image, the holographic argument examines a question from a variety of angles and on a variety of levels, knowing that no single perspective will tell the whole story.  Something approximating truth emerges from all of the angles, and, indeed, from the interaction (interference) between different models.  An example of the latter can be seen when you ask questons that can't be answered by one model, and find another that will provide answers.  Not only is there information in the answers, but also in the nature of the models that can and can't provide them.

   I'm not sure the person who drew up the flow chart would be up to that sort of discussion, probably wanting to retreat to their Aristotelian logic and classical scientific method.  He would claim that I was violating his standards, when in fact I am just going beyond them. 

   Hmm.  The beginning of an idea.

Well, as far as it goes, I really like this.  It's from Pharyngula, a science oriented blog.

The problem is that it is stacked for the fundamentalist rationalist, because he/she gets to define what constitutes "evidence" and insists on arguing in a straight line while many discussions, even scientific ones, require a more holographic approach.  Perhaps I'll design a flow chart for arguing with rabid rationalists. 

It's a bit chopped off on the right.  I'm seriously thinking of switching blog platforms. 

   One of the 100 top scientific stories in this month's "Discover Magazine" is about an experimental city being built outside Abu Dhabi, which is in the United Arab Emirates.  This is a $20 billion city being constructed for about 40 000 residents.  The intention is to make it an ultra-green city using alternative power and even electric cars.  That's a lot of money, but it will provide a place to experiment with alternative technologies which may pave the way of the future. 

   OK, so somebody tell me why this is happening in the UAE!  Sure, they have the money to do it, but that money, ironically, is coming from good old oil.  Western countries want to liberate themselves from oil, -yes.  But they also want to end dependence on the Middle East.  Why are we not seeing an investment like this in the U.S., or in Germany, or even in Japan?  The logical outcome of this would be that Middle East investments in new technologies will ensure that they keep a stranglehold on the energy consumption of the rest of the world.  Smart business on their part, but not really smart for the rest of us. 

   The U.S.A. used to be the innovators of the world, but are so busy confusing science and religion that they're slipping out of the game.  Canada has the opportunity to step in and make some major things happen, but I think we're still too small minded.  Watch China and India.  I'm sure they'll see the opportunities and jump on it before too long.

   I don't know about the other countries, but one thing that UAE and China have that is going to be a huge advantage for them is that their governments have no qualms about concentrating resources at the top.  Advancements have always been easier when rulers aren't afraid to concentrate resources.  During the Middle Ages or the Renaissance, wealth was concentrated in the aristocracy.  If it hadn't been, the advances made in this period of history never would have happened.  If the rulers had been concerned with spreading the wealth evenly and uplifting the masses, we'd probably still be throwing our human waste out the window into the street.  We like to think that human history has been a progression away from aristocracy, towards a more liberal equality, but that only really works if we have a society that is enlightened and advanced enough to make it work.  We may be getting there, but we're not there yet, and competition from those that aren't afraid to designate resources (even at the cost of their populations) will have the upper hand.

   I'm not really sure what that means.  It's just food for thought. 

   I came across an interesting experiment described in Science and the Akashic Field - An Integral Theory of Everything, by Ervin Laszlo (-my current light reading).  The study will be of particular interest to those students of mine who have engaged in group meditation instruction. 

   The study was conducted at the National University of Mexico by Jacobo Grinberg-Zylberbaum.  He worked with an experimental group who were connected by having meditated together, and a control group of random people.  When separated, he found that those with the common connection of meditation were able to "sense' the sensations of the others.  This wasn't done with mind reading or anything like that.  It was done by measuring brain wave EEG responses and Galvanic skin responses, -in other words, purely with sub-conscious responses.  When one "sender" was stimulated with loud noises, bright lights or mild electric shocks, the receivers with the common connection consistently showed a common response 25% of the time, while those without the connection showed only random results.  Strong synchronized responses were also shown between couples that were closely connected in other ways, such as being lovers or twins. 

   Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff showed similar results back in the 1970s, but unfortunately have damaged their credibility with studies of Uri Geller and involvement in Scientology.  Their earlier studies may or amy not have any merritt.

   I find this interesting because we've had many groups of people who have shared common meditations for prolonged periods of times.  Some of my groups have meditated together for as long as four years.  During those periods there always seemed to be a closeness and bonding that was exhibited by the members, some of which are still very close. 

   The implications here are very interesting.  Could common experiences such as group meditation work as an entry gate to empathy?  It also brings up many questions about the potential for non-local, quantum entanglement and how it may create an inhearent connection between people and perhaps all living things. 

Well this is very disturbing as, to me, it sums up the very real dangers of fundamentalist religious indoctrination

   It seems that a new Gallup Poll identifies almost 40% of Americans as rejecting evolution and believing in the Creationist view that God created man as he/she is about 10 000 years ago.  I feel that this has really dangerous implications for the following reasons:

   1.  To believe the Creationist view, it is necessary to suspend your belief in science and reason, ignoring all of the theories involving geology, anthropology, carbon dating, dinosaurs, etc. 

   2.  To do that, it is necessary to marginalize intelligence and reason in your mindset.  This would explain why the intelligencia in the States is under fire and being criticised, and in some cases, ridiculed.

   3.  When you look more carefully at the data, you see that belief in creationism is inversely related to education.  Among those with a high school education or less, Creationism is supported at a rate of about 47%, while evolution is supported by those with a postgraduate education at about 45%.  Once again, it is going to be necessary for the uneducated people believing in Creationism to reject and marginalize the intelligent in order to maintain their beliefs.  This is a dangerous situation, and as I said, is already happening.

   4.  Further research shows, interestingly, that the United States is the country that has the lowest percentage of people believing in evolution, and the highest in Creationism, where a recent poll identifies only 35% believing in evolution.  (The poll is over a decade old but I can't find anything more recent.)  The only country that also has a level below 50% is Poland.  Most countries, like the UK and Germany are upwards of 65% to 80%.  (Canada is not mentioned in this poll.)  This means that among the developed western countries, the US sits in a unique position of extremism.  And they're the ones making foreign policy decisions involving Muslim countries. 

   5.  These anti-intellectual, reason rejecting, dogmatic creationists tend to be overwhelmingly Republican.  (It's right there in the data.)  Again, this puts American politics in the grips of religious extremism. 

   6.  Those with strong religious leanings are more likely to attend church regularly and send their children to religiously motivated schools and youth groups.  (Check out the movie "Jesus Camp")  In those settings, youth is being indoctrinated at an impressionable age, to perpetuate all of the things I've mentioned above.  People outside of that goldfish bowl (i.e. more liberal individuals, more educated families and those more inclined to believe in evolution and science) are the ones who are more likely to take advantage of public education and to promote open-mindedness.

   I have no real quarrel with religion, as such.  I have religious beliefs, although they are not "traditional".  Evolution is probably not perfect.  What I oppose, and what often scares me, are the kinds of things I've summarized above.

   I am intrigued by the humble neutron.  What exactly is it.  Modern physics says it is not a particle, so therefore it must be energy.  And yet, by its very definition, it has a neutral charge.  Energy with a neutral charge is nothing.  So a neutron is essentially nothing.  When it acts to bond protons together, it can exist forever.  Independently, it tends to disintegrate.  So it is an important nothing which is something that holds an atom together, and seems to only exist with any resilience when it is doing that job. A nothing which is something. 

   Could it be an condition, or perhaps a unit of information describing a condition, -but yet a unit of information which is an actual entity.  A unit of information existing as an entity in the universe.  It opens up all kinds of possibilities. 

   Warning to all:  This is what happens when you read Quantum Physics articles.  Beware!

     Top Ten lists abound at this time of year.  Not to be outdone, "Enlighten Next" magazine published their "Top Ten Wacky Spiritual Workshops" in their just-released issue, and Toronto takes the top slot.

     Ganga Yoga is cannabis-enhanced yoga, offered at the Hot Box Cafe in Kensingon Market.  (Bring your own weed.)  Personally, I always thought that Yoga and Meditation were about purification and balance, both of which may be more challenging when intoxicated in any way. 

     Other workshops to make the list included Doga (yoga with dog positions), Yoga and Pole Dancing (described as a "striptease aerobics class") and Punk Rock Yoga (-"how loud can you scream om").

     Oh yes, and don't forget "Overcoming Fear with Yoga and Chocolate".  Mmmmm...

Cold weather and tons of snow in the past week.  I know lots of people are jumping for joy, looking forward to snowboarding and skiing, -but I've never really liked the winter.  Hence...

THINGS I HATE ABOUT WINTER:

1.  The way my muscles cringe every time I walk out a door.

2.  My coat getting caught in the car door when I try to close it without being showered with snow from the roof of the car.

3.  Sitting around a campfire in the dark for hours freezing and then looking at you watch to discover that it's only 7:30 p.m.

4.  Trying to find your cell phone under layers of clothing when you just barely hear it ringing.

5..Scraping ice off car windows and wondering at what point your rear windshield wiper dropped of onto the road. 

6.  Thinking that females look much better in shorts and t-shirts.

7.  Icicles on the moustache.

8.  Self serve gas stations where the shelters make excellent wind tunnels.

...All right, I'm getting depressed now.

        As I travel through the south-east I cannot avoid being aware of the
Christian and conservative tone of the population.  Whether it be signs saying “Jesus Saves:, crosses on hillsides, evangelical radio stations or anti-abortion billboards, you can feel a level of religious intensity that I’m just not used to in most areas of Canada.

    While I don’t entirely agree with these ideologies, I really hold no animosity towards them or their true messages.  More often than not, the problem I have is not with the ideologies, but with the frailty of the people swinging them by their tails.

    Christianity claims to be based on the teachings of Jesus as presented in the Bible.  It is supposed to be full of love and patience and acceptance and turning the other cheek…  This is the message of most of the New Testament.  Believing that the New Testament has priority over the Old Testament is one of the main things distinguishing Christians from Jews. 

    And yet, as I enter the south-east, with it’s dominance of Christianity, I also find porn shops and strip joints on the outskirts of every small town.  I find gun shops and gun shows where everyone from 10 year old kids to 80 year old grandmas walking around talking about rounds and laser sights and calibers.  (Yes I went in and checked one out, absolutely amazed to see thousands of handguns and automatic rifles on display.)  I find people who have an indignation against those who don’t hold their views, as if being Muslim or Gay (or, often, intellectual) nullifies all the teachings of Christ with regards to loving your neighbor, -much as it was with long hair just 40 years ago. 

    Turning to the topic of conservatives, here there is a clear ideology as well.  Conservatives are Right Wing in their political and economic views.  This means that they support a minimum amount of interference or regulation of individual rights by a government.  Capitalism and free enterprise should operate unencumbered, with individuals having eh liberty to create and build their own success.  The American Dream!  (If this all sounds very ego-centric, check out Ayn Rand, who supported and summed up Right-Wing politics in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness.)

    And yet Right-Wing conservatism often becomes a vehicle for greed and exploitation.  The greed comes from a sense of Right-Wing entitlement, while the exploitation rests on Social Darwinism (-still around as much as everybody wants to think it’s dead), -a sort of economic survival of the fittest.  Conservatives, while hating the idea of government control love to manipulate the economy through the collusion of power in big businesses.  Unchecked, Right Wing ideologies turn into corporate totalitarianism (just as unchecked Left Wing ideologies turn into socialist totalitarianism).

CONTINUED...

    Both ideologies have many valid things to contribute to our society.  Both are models which have notable facets.  However, the way they are practiced leaves a lot to be desired.  It seems that both ideologies tend to be attached to a certain personality type, and that type tends to be intolerant and authoritarian.  (Ken Wilber’s meta-model explains this fully, and I’ll get around to talking about that some time in the future.  I know it is a rather harsh statement if no support is provided.)  It’s kind of, “Everybody is free to do what they want, as long as they agree with me.”  Stray outside the norm or the status quo of family values and you will be condemned.

    The worst thing is when the two ideologies get together, which is really odd since they are contrary in so many ways.  Then the ideology really gets muddled and unclear.  Low income Christian families end up voting for Republicans because of so called “family values”, anti-abortion policies, stem cell research and a whole bunch of other things of which hey have no real understanding.  These would be the same Republicans who want to cut social services and favor big businesses.  I’ve never understood that paradox.  You get Christian families who vote for Republican politicians because they promise to reintroduce prayer into the schools, -these same politicians who are running on a platform of less government intervention. 

    I see it here on my visit to the south-east, as I see it anywhere religion or conservatism is pursued with conspicuous flag waving and excess, that the ideology has a thin venire hiding the ugliness of human nature underneath it.  Why?  Because these ideologies (or at least the way they’re commonly practiced) are superficial.  This kind of Christianity is often based on blind faith and conservatism is often based on knee-jerk policies, rules and slogans.  There is very little depth of understanding.  (At least Ayn Rand got that part right.)  Hence the eventual triumph of the darker parts of human nature, -the preachers who get caught with hookers or little boys – the extremist views of the KKK – the corruption and back stabbing in the name of capitalism which led to a massive downfall of Western economy. 

    True human development towards social responsibility demands depth of understanding.  By their very nature, Christianity(or at least that of the evangelical or fundamentalist sort) and hard core, right wing conservatism do not encourage depth of though.  In fact a lot of the time they are based on deception.  They both want an obedient populous, not a critical one. 

    When they are at their best, they make valuable contributions.  But they are generally not at their best because they fail to take into account something that politicians and social analysts cannot afford to ignore.  -Human nature.