Altering the Self: A Note on Context and Philosophy

If you can think it, you can be it…

Ok – does that mean I can be anything I think that I can become? Context holds supreme value. If I think I am a unicorn…crickets. However, if I think I am I writer, I can be one. In fact, I am a writer as demonstrated by writing this very blog. Now, if I intend on being a successful writer…well, that takes a bit more time, effort, skill, and product. This is important:  Thought requires action as a follow-through.

Henry Ford is noted for saying:  “Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right” (Quote Investigator).

Excellent, but how do you apply the concept? As with many things, sheer belief is not enough. Belief in the self requires more than simply thinking, and one must act on their desires for effect in the material world. What that means is that one must apply their thoughts actively in their lives. In example, Steve believes he will become a brain surgeon. Steve knows he needs education and experience so that he may become a doctor. Steve toils away, challenging himself at university so that he has realistic tools that provide validation for his belief. Steve becomes a doctor because he believed in himself – but the only way he could make it happen was through action.

That initial belief in the self is a crucial element, but belief is not strong enough on its own and cannot produce results. Way back in Communications and Public Speaking, I learned about “self-fulfilling prophecies.” What one tells the self holds much authority with what that individual holds as true and/or possible. Consciousness is shifty like that, the more often we hear or say something is true, the more true it becomes.

“You predict something and then knowingly/unknowingly act to cause the prediction [to] come true” (KAAGMANDU).

In application, the concept works at improving or destroying one’s self-conscious opinion of what they can or cannot attain in life. This can be seen clearly in abuse. Imagine Molly has an abusive boyfriend who tells her everyday that she is unattractive, overweight, and stupid. Because Molly value’s her boyfriend’s opinion of her and trusts his judgement, she will eventually believe the negative comments are true and real. Molly’s judgment is clouded by outside prophetic limitations.

However, if she considered the statements with a positive manner, she could see that the boyfriend defeats himself with his claims. Molly cannot be completely unattractive or else she would not have attracted the boyfriend. Instead, the negatives listed are probably fears the boyfriend has in regards of himself. Abusive boyfriends often project their flaws on their victims. What Molly needs is a better self-image – and that goes back to what one thinks they can be. Molly can accept she is not a supermodel, and focus on her true qualities, hence altering her perception of herself.

“The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes” (William James).

William James’ quote caught my eye this morning on Twitter.Great quote, with excellent intentions. However, I wonder if people unfamiliar with James’ variant philosophies catch the meaning. And, I consider the dangers lurking in the Law of Attraction when taken out of context.

“Now the starting point is to see that Thought, or purely mental action, is the only possible source from which the existing creation could ever have come into manifestation at all…” (Thomas Troward).

I cannot accept concepts of the Law of Attraction. I’ve tried; I’ve read, researched, theorized, and exhausted myself searching for firm ground. I decided not to include a link because I cannot feel good about any of the sites I’ve studied. The main issue I hold is that struggle is necessary for growth, just wishing for something does not make it so.

I do recommend The Dore Lectures by Thomas Troward, but I caution that his look at Mental Science relies heavily on religious belief. Click HERE and read free online. Now, that’s not to say that there is no value in the theory of like attracting like – the fundamental holds true for implementing positive perception in life. However, perception must at one point come to terms with reality.

Ayn Rand said, “In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance” (Objectivism for Intellectuals).

And so…we must take a closer look at Metaphysics. What exists and what does not show face in reality. A deeper interest in reality has led me towards Objectivism. Ayn Rand developed Objectivism Philosophy and wrote novels that revealed societal issues, including The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Currently, I am about one-third through the latter, and I see numerous elements of corruption present in contemporary society as described by Rand in 1957.

The Ayn Rand Institute carries values of her philosophy and offers further study. Check out ARI and learn about Objectivism. Share your comments below. I watched Prof. Peikoff’s lecture yesterday, and I really like the sound structure of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics as seen in Objectivism. Of intense interest is how to implement laissez-faire Capitalism – it sounds scary, but I think that’s false-morality talking. Definitely deserves a .

“Introduction to Objectivism” by Leonard Peikoff

 

I can think many things. I can imagine numerous thoughts. However, I must select which thoughts are worthy of implementing through action. What thoughts I will have in my reality, what is really possible. And here is where positive thoughts attract positive things. Whatever one looks for is what they will find. Why? because it was there all along, the mind just missed it because it was set to a different “channel.”

Altering one’s reality begins with altering the self, or how one perceives the self to be. Starting out basic, let’s set a sound, realistic version of who that self is, what that self can do, and how that self behaves. Think on it; really work it around in your mind. Then, realize that for the self to improve, that self must act on its desires, goals, and wants. Altering the self begins in the mind and continues through implemented action.

 

 

 

ShoutOut to SourcesQuote Investigator,

“To: R…”

all-seeing-eye-1235517

To: R…

 

All-seeing, the Eye blinks perspective.

Housed in the head, heated by the heart,

the Eye pulses with life.

 

Called “evil” as in warding off,

but… what is evil if not the reordering

of that which was once perceived as good?

 

The illumed see Truth

— sculpt reason, taste creation.

The Grand Observer, the Eye stares

into faces of untold struggles.

 

Woken, the “I” gazes universality,

relating theory as land-bridges,

building cities the blind cannot see.

 

The Woke are loathe to wait —

hurry the herd towards enlightenment.

But, the Eye knows: change is gradual,

not everyone is an “I”… not yet.

 

A. Shaffer July 2016

Hello Dear Readers and Fellow Writers…

I’m sharing “To:  R….” today, an electronic copy of my most recent works. We are fortunate to know R… and value his judgement and subjective outlook. That he also is on the Path of Optimism surely is not coincidence but maybe Quantum<>. For the original piece I invested more effort as the poem was a gift to my husband’s current closest friend. Their companionship is one of those unique connections that stand out in life. I created a “Thank You” card on the coolest textured paper, we’re going with pressed-bamboo. I wish I would have taken a pic of the card. I think it turned out well, even though I am not a “crafter.” The man, the myth, the legend, lol, is kinda a big deal because he is raising awareness right here in Wild n Wonderful — directly for Husband, it seems. Also, for me …not often enough do I encounter another “seeker,” and I value the philosophical hanglooses our friend endures. He has made the comment that he can understand how it is difficult for people to talk with me, in a sense that I am “too aware.”

He has a point, I come on very strong and lead with unsettling thoughts. Not many enjoy my thoughts, but… I will tell you a secret — I am not here for society’s enjoyment. My mission is to seek, find, question, contemplate, and create. There are plenty of others that may fill the role of performer. I am not here for amusement. I am looking for more. Entertainment is only entertaining if taken in proper doses. A life of constant amusement lacks substance. I am one that is more for substance. I take my amusement as a condiment, not a main course.

However, I sense a universal message:  “Use language as the communication that it is, but if none understand what is said then meaning is lost.”

The process of Awakening varies per subjective individual. I feel both of our ways could be correct — the value lay in effort. There are many people who will understand our friend as his charisma carries his intentions, he speaks words the majority of people comprehend. His works are good. I am not speaking to the same audience or through the same media. I will work at improving my interactions with others, but I do not intend on shifting my audience. I am here for those already Woke. I am ready for progression into higher depths. My concern is not for the herd but for the other shepherds. These minds are not shattered by my words, they already see similar truths.

The best way for my mind’s continued growth is through further contemplation and creation. Others who think like me are surely out there; the journey, then, is the leading together of like minds. O Philosophy! think of the thoughts formed by a society of seekers. This is the companionship I crave.

MmePhilosopher

Link to Interview w/ Bev Zizzy…as promised

Interview with Bev Zizzy

Music Improves Society

6190506_orig.jpg

Hello Dear Readers ~

Happy Friday! Today brings an extra *smiles* as Bev Zizzy, an artist I interviewed for my music journalism internship, released her new album Standing on a Platform of KINDNESS on iTunes. Click HERE to purchase, or follow the link provided in the interview. Click HERE to read the interview “Reclaiming 13 and Supporting Compassion:  Bev Zizzy Slides Societal Issues with Acoustic-Soul” (Punchland). Thank you to Mr. Taron Cochrane for introducing me to Miss Bev, she is the most interesting of individuals! To any of my you DearReaders who are also TalentedArtists – click HERE to view Taron’s twitter and connect for entertainment relations.

13 is a theme of the album that Bev noticed afterwards, and I add my own notice of 13 here. The article has been ready-to-print minus the music till today when the tracks released. It was then that I noticed there were 13 revisions. In a tweet, Bev said:

That is wicked awesome! Can you hear me laughing out loud! I LOVE IT!

The experience is enlightening — hashing out philosophical fundamentals through discussion and music. At one point, one has to let language go and let the brain accept music’s message. Here, we can learn lessons even language cannot capture. Truths we cannot tell but may absorb, and in turn, express.

More Truths can be found through culture and more culture. However one was raised is one’s culture, but let’s get more. The act does not have to diminish the original, but can be used to better understand internal motivation, which presents awareness. Yesterday, Dr. Bob helped me to better understand and face ugly historical happenings. We must be brave and bold, courageously confronting truth.

#RisingArtists #Dionysian #MusicMoveMe

Shout to sources:  iTunes, Punchland, Twitter

Where you been Ole Girl?…

On Becoming…

e3441207b7504922ab89ad333ce83eef

Funny you should ask, I’ve been rolling through theory for ten weeks. I am evolving, twisting turning. Shedding old skins that no longer fit my season. Its weird, to say the least…but we like weird. And the further I crawl in evolution research – the more I begin to see that we are all a little weird in our own right {not just the “us-es” that live in me, all those “you-s” too}. And that’s not even opening the can of “species” in which one is indeed many different things. Most recently, I’ve considered transcending dualism…you know, asking “What is next?” Are we really two? Or a form of one with multiple expressive components. A large, flexing plurality micro-sectioned into millions of individuals. Creepy, I know<>. If there were a choice, to be be all body or all mind, which one would you select? Here, I see the need for unification. What would be the point if action held no meaning, or if thought could not experience? The two go hand in hand. We must have both.

Anyway… The rest of my Grad School update – I’ve constructed a reviewable rough draft! The original, rougher-rough draft, is a sprawling beast. However, when I began the cuts I could not bring myself to really “throw the draft out.” I saved it, and – as recommended by my peer – will possibly look into book form once my degree is attained. Really, this is a bonus – now there will be a paper and a book possibility for the future. That is not to say that I am not nervous as all get out that the paper will bomb from the heavy cuts. O Fortune! smile upon this wayward researcher. Motivation is for the degree, but also… I’ve grown to love my topic, and I see much truth in the words – I hope that publication is possible because I want others to read my discoveries. I think it will help with real-deal life. I know that the research and writing helped me with my daily issues. This thesis led me out of the valley of despair. I want to lead others out, that valley is not good for the genes – much pickling and souring goes on there.

What else…?

My music journalism internship was officially complete 27 May 2016. A hectic day – my SweetJane graduated High School and James Bobin’s Alice Through the Looking Glass released. Exhaustion seized me, and I went to sleep around ten p.m. What a day!

I use the term “officially” because I still have one music assignment waiting to complete. An amazing interview with Bev Zizzy will be published 17 June 2016 – in conjunction with her new album release. I say “amazing” because I am the one that interviewed her – she is hands down the most interesting woman I have met in my physical life.

Followers of this blog will note that I am not a “believer,” but I am a “seeker.” Unfortunately, my MO in the past has been “seeking” to shatter “belief” with “truth.” Ultimately, a lesson I learned nearly a decade ago resurfaces:  truth is subjective. I know this, yet seemed trapped in that terrible Pursuit of Truth. I broke free, and switched it up for the Pursuit of Optimism – but positive living is dependent on will power and forcing the good. Needless to say, it takes work and effort.

I went through a stage where I thought “signs” were pointless, or rather, imaginary. A trick of the mind, leading to delusion. Now, after the internship, after speaking with living, breathing artists…

After the strange Tibetian Monk approached me in New Orleans with a message… After I randomly met the YouTube TruthTalker I once followed online and danced with him in the street… After I philosophized with a new friend of Middle-Eastern culture… After much contemplation of “the egg”… After Bev Zizzy released “Stay Soft”…  I am not certain.

Embedding issues :-< apologies… Watch for the interview on 17 June 2016. MTF

“Stay Soft” by Bev Zizzy. Click HERE for preview and purchase on iTunes.

I am curious again, maybe not fully “curiouser” yet, but I see my own purpling underway. I’ve come to the point where I am seeing more and more signs, but I am trying to ignore them. Trying to cling to science, reason, and the physical world. One thing – I am reminded that I am an Artist. Whether I am a “good” one or not is to be determined, but I am one. Not a musician or songwriter, not a painter or sculptor…but an Artist all the same. I am an Artist because I look at reality and see more than other people do. Sometimes, I see more absence where there should be presence, but that is still more than meets the eye. Mundane life is not enough, there is more if we make there be more – juice it up like a turkey.

I am an Artist, and life can get thick.

My canvas is the mind, my brush dripping in consciousness. I wrap words and break down complex situations. We Artists see the beauty most vivid, and we relate that to others. We Artists see the horror in thirty-three tints of terrible, and we relate that to others. We see

image024

the “good” and the “bad.” We share awareness for altruistic encouragement. Artists revive other Artists, reminding them of the meaning hidden behind it all.  Artists bravely look in reality’s face and demand more. Recognizing this makes me monitor what I share, say and side with – I am an Artist, and others will follow. Careful then, as to where we lead them.

Artists are a light, guiding species through evolution… We may not know the answers, but we are brave enough to explore possibility. #RageOn fellow Artists. There is much to be revealed.

Dr. Faustus in 2016: Twisted Lyrics

“I Took a Pill in Ibiza” by Mike Posner from At Night, Alone.:

Looking for Meaning…

Song Interpretation:

I am so busy with research, but I cannot get this song out of my head. Nor, can I think of anything else until I unburden my mind of this flexing metaphor. There’s not time for a lyrical breakdown, but I’ll return to expound.

Philosophical Bend:

I feel Faustus lurking. Once one knows too much, they can never go back. Posner says, “You don’t wanna be high like me, never really knowing why, like me. You don’t wanna step off that roller coaster and be alone. You don’t wanna ride the bus like this, never knowing who to trust like this…” University and individual research presents more, and often conflicting, information as to what a person learned during their childhood and adolescence. Learning can enlighten the mind, but one must lose their innocent understanding in the process.

Sure, he’s referring to singing and his life devotion to music. Same concept applies to diverse artistic expression. High Philosophical Art questions and prods at reality, consciousness, meaning, and purpose. What happens when the “rules” are really figments meant to ensure group delusion? Philosophy demonstrates subjective and objective truth, reaching for but rarely attaining universal implication. Break that down:

nothing is real, nothing is true

amounts to feels, what can one do?

Well…once you kneel, then you must stew.

{read that last line in a deep baritone, just for snickers}

Posner’s chorus:  “All I know are sad songs…” – When one has searched for knowledge, toyed around with epistemology, learned to bend fact to one’s purpose, innocence is lost. Not sexual innocence, deeper than that – fundamental understanding. All that is left of personal experience is “sad songs” or a seriously hollow existence. Philosophically, there is a sense of false comfort that cushions the harshness of reality for those who accept “belief” or conform to society. Once one “knows” the rampant delusions, meaning is lost.

Man, the meaning…it has to come back. See…I feel that we can create meaning. Mount up, Artists. Lady World, she needs creative spin.

The Pope, Durkheim,…and Quantum Physics

Reducing Human Importance

Animal, Natural, Small and Insignificant:  the Cry of Humankind

Pope Pius XII supported the Big Bang theory. Bowler and Morus said, “In 1951, Pope Pius XII delivered an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he explicitly appealed to the big bang theory of the universe as a scientific endorsement of the Catholic Church’s position.”[1] I learned about this in Catholic class {I converted to marry but cannot “believe”}. Father Robert said that the big bang does not disprove God but actually backs up the Catholic belief. What he meant was that the Catholic God speaks to His people in many methods. For the majority, the lessons in the bible are enough, but for the questioning mind that searches for proof religious parables do not supply adequate information. Fr. insisted that faith came without proof, and that Catholics are not dependent on the signs present in the Old Testament. At the time, I shrugged it off, thinking that Catholicism had to make room for the big bang because the scientists found the organic beginnings of life and religion could not deny the truth of fact.

However, I read Emile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious Life for HUMN 571 Individuals, Societies, and the Spirit, and now…what Fr. said makes more sense. The overall message of Durkheim’s text was that religion was actually the motivator for society, but not in the way a religious person would initially expect. First off, discard all elements of belief, myth, and promise. Religion in primitive society, specifically the Australian Aboriginal in 1912, orchestrated the basic needs of life and created a mutual system in which people could set rules and continue existence. Durkheim said, “[Religion] is not simply a system of signs by which faith is expressed outwardly, it is a collection of means by which it is created and periodically recreates itself.”[2] See, religion is adaptive, just like human beings, and it will shift into a substance that supports society…because it is society. For primitives, religion is daily life and expressed through the negative and positive cult; for the Ancient World, religion governed through feasts, celebration, and lamentation; for the Medieval World, religion developed chivalry and legend; for the Renaissance, religion began to be more personal as more people learned to read and write; for the Reformation, religion turned its back on luxury because the clergy morphed into a second monarchy; for the Scientific Revolution, religion began to absorb science because society looked for empirical evidence; for the Modern World, religion went into the rectory and licked its wounds, trying to find away to conform to the needs of the people; and for Post-Modern World, here we sit, consciously working our understanding to allow room for science and religion in our vast concept of what life really entails. Religion is adaptive, she has been shifting ever since the beginning of recorded history, and there is little reason to assume that she will stop. After all, as Durkheim noted, we are religion, we are the coming together of many energies in efforts to make one universal note. We are an orchestra of life, and that must include symphonies of each human expression.

{Peer} wrote: “the Earth and humans went from being the center and most significant part of the universe to a very small part, place in an insignificant corner of a very large and apparently expanding universe “

I think much can be said for perspective. On one hand, it is humbling to go from being specifically created by God to an organism reacting to one’s environment, and then to top it all off with Earth not being the center of the universe but just a planet in a system – then that system not being special but one of many universes. Yes, I see…it makes a human feel small and rather unimportant, but what if we shift the perspective without changing any of the fact. This is a beauty of quantum theory – many possibilities happen and are possible. Out of all of the known universes, we are still the only existing form of life (not just humans, but you follow) that we know of…to me, that does not say that there is no other life, but that we are not aware of it. {meaning other characteristics of life like light, radio waves, protons/neutrons, tiny particles of matter – I am not referring to little green men, or Star Trek heros} It was only the 1970s when science came onto this notion, that was not that long ago and I feel there is still room for advancement. Before Einstein, humanity did not know about the atom, and modern science is just beginning nanoscience – the extremely small universe. There are more answers, science must first be able to form the questions.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press,2005.

Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. Carol Cosman. Ed. Mark S. Cladis. Oxford, New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 2008.

Picture c/o:  https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b5/b7/46/b5b746fa6378e0252fbf7ffdda452131.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 291.

[2] Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, p. 312.

Deduction for Future Evolution of Species

Technology Encourages Advanced Intellect

Knowledge presented by the scientific method shattered scholastic consideration for real-time events. Society began to question instead of take for granted the origins and purpose of life. {Peer} wrote: “The changes that are sometimes so hard for the scientific community to make in the society at large can be even harder to make within the scientific community.”

Yes, changes that greatly impact human existence are difficult to accept or reject, depending on one’s stance. Science not only discovers empirical fact, but they then have to figure out how to introduce new truth to society after they battle it out with their peers.

I like to do comparisons to see if we can predict any future historical happenings via deduction. Evolution and the printing press, if we allow these to be classified as encouraging progress, prepared humans for modernism. Once modern, humanity took a step back and developed post-modernism to correct the errors created by aggressive reason (rising ethics and repulsion to barbarism). Around this time, society received new input from offices of authority – the Internet piggy-backed off the printing press and Quantum Theory came roaring in to make evolution look like Link-in-Logs. One of the most cliché sayings, “History repeats itself,” is lingering…. If the printing press (15th c) presented the ability to issue in the scientific revolution (17th, 18th, 19th c) then we may deduce that approximately 200 years after the Internet (20th c) – maybe less if we account for the advancement of the human brain as means to reduce the rate of improvement – so…let us allot for exponential growth, say 115 years… with this rough estimation, science (though it might be called something different by then, think “natural philosophers” becoming specialist scientists) may expect another revolution around 2131 c.e.

This, of course, is under the assumption that Isis does not behead or blow up humanity, and that overpopulation has not encouraged the other organic systems to eradicate the human species as means of defense. The good news is that the advancement of species displays the immense possibilities for the future, but the bad news is that our intelligence may lead to unimaginable morphisms, which current consciousness fears the loss of human nature. I do not think the latter will happen. Human nature is adaptive, it will undoubtedly change but it will not disappear. Religion will also change, adapting to the demands of society – it has to because it is a human expression and a collective effort that creates society.

In one realm of existence, religion may stay the same until the people who believe its mantras no longer exist, but quantum theory tells us that there is a realm where religion merges with science, a realm where religion dies as well as one where science ends, and realms where chaos or harmony may be the result. In 115 years, human intelligence may balk or embrace multiple dimensional realms – we, unfortunately, are not yet evolved enough to accept the truth of the future.

Picture c/o:  http://www.lightworkersworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/move-on-483×300.jpg

Writing Prompt: Flex that Creativity

Future Self as Voyeur

Prompt:  In 100 words, capture what your future self would think of your current actions, or a reaction to this statement, “[Motivation is found] thinking that my future self is watching me through memories” (Evi, Pacifica Community Post).

Thank reason, I thought to myself while scrolling through my unorganized memory system, I finally released the intrusive urge for uniqueness of being. I knew the thought catalog would become fluid soon, now that reason is understood as natural and morality is released of dogmatic obligations. I smile and casually sip my coffee, as I remember how I relinquished authority from the supernatural. My younger-young self tragically shattered, she asked how a faery-creature could continue without wings…but the answer was simple – I had legs my own all along. What good are imagined wings when real feet carry one much further?

Picture c/o:  https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b1/7a/13/b17a13affce61067ebf70ce224c1b89a.jpg Reminding us that Yes! it is okay to not believe. Thanks for a lovely image.

Discussion Request: Yep…on Consciousness

Currently reading JJ Semple’s The Biology of Consciousness:  Case Studies in Kundalini

Dear fellow blogger who recommended this title…Where for art thou? lol Let’s get an online “Consciousness Hangloose” rolling <>

I have only begun reading Semple’s piece, but I am eager to discuss what has transpired thus far. What I am finding as crucial is the value of variant experiences in regards to spirituality/consciousness, and the relation betwixt the two. What I mean is:  to define Kundalini, as primordial formative authority, takes more than one individual’s contemplation and it is better understood by multiple voices. Semple notes early on that no two experiences are the same, indicating that an individual’s connection to primeval life force is a personal “relationship.” On the negative side, for empirical considerations, if no two are the same than neither can be properly tested or observed. Semple attaches the senses – where empirical data is acquired – to consciousness, specifically to the Ego or “Conscious Spirit” as opposed to the “Primal Spirit” (21).

Ahh…more dualism. The conscious human being is aware of the self’s inner abilities to think, observe, and theorize. The Primal Spirit, however, is the other half to the whole – the way an individual viewed the self before the individual was told what one was supposed to think {social conditioning}. The Primal Spirit is able to be in relation to the Conscious Spirit through Kundalini and mediation. If possible, this process – referred to as “Evolutionary Impulses” – the Primal Spirit is able to reconstruct, fix, or improve the individual based on one’s internal blueprints. Semple said, “Kundalini doesn’t only reengineer the body; it remakes the psyche” (22).

In the brain lies the blueprints for how the individual is supposed to be formed. Due to accidents throughout one’s life, development and growth may be stunted or halted. Semple claims that through Kundalini meditation and practice that the Primal Spirit can fix experience’s errors. <>Interesting.

This will be a challenge for me – to try Kundalini, not to read the book – as I am leery of the term spirituality because it initially conjures up images of the Transcendentalist movement and a rejection of the material world. Due to my graduate studies, my thinking process has greatly altered. Currently, I look to science for answers demonstrated through the empirical method. Semple says that one must discard what one knows to start fresh. Like he quotes in the text, I agree with Socrates in that “all I know is that I know nothing.” But, I’d like to note the context of this quote:  it is found in Plato’s The Republic and shows up when someone credits Socrates as the person who had the most knowledge – but Socrates, because he is wise, thinks that he knows very little because there is so much more knowledge to discover. On another level, the angle I think Semple is demonstrating, is that Socrates – or any human organism – is not formulated to understand primordial ordeals through the conscious mind. This indicates that there is another “voice,” one that is above the animal kingdom. The Primal Spirit – or primordial voice – sings in tunes that human ears cannot hear because we are blocked by Ego. By reducing the ego, the individual may commune with the primordial.

Important to Note:  the primordial voice is Natural and connected to natural selection and evolution; the primordial voice is biological and interactive with human consciousness.

I have a meditation routine I practice nightly to help me fall asleep. My motivation lies in the fact that I have 333 billion thoughts racing through my mind at every given moment. I use meditation to slow my brain and calm my breathing. I envision that I approach a plank, lie down on it stiffly, and let the plank move back and forth slowly swinging. By concentrating on breathing, I am able to ignore rampant thoughts. I tried one of Semple’s breathing methods last night, and I experienced something different than usual.

Kundalini Meditation Experiment #1

Something I can only describe as an intense “heat” or “energy” rooted in my spine mimicking the beating of my heart. I was more “aware” of my heartbeat, it’s weight, pulse and sound. I had to cease the breathing method and resort to my tried and true mediation breath patterns to “calm down” my heartbeat and blood circulation. I slept well and awoke refreshed. Will note next experience.

DISCUSSION:  How do you define spirituality? Can spirituality be compared to, or a parallel of, consciousness? How would you define Kundalini?

Works Cited

Semple, JJ. The Biology of Consciousness:  Case Studies in Kundalini. Bayside, California:  Life Force Books, 2013.

Picture c/o:  https://nanobrainimplant.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/aaaa2.jpg

Science Speaks but Society Cherry-Picks Ideals

One question I still have for modern science is – have they been able to discover why the female brain is smaller than the male? Granted, I utilize deduction a good bit so my non-scientific conclusion to the brain size issue is that: men are bigger and stronger (biologically) than the female gender…therefore their brains by necessity would be slightly larger. I have always thought that organs were in proportion to their bodies.

I cannot remember which thread we were in, but I believe we discussed context – and taking things in or out of context. I see this as a huge hurdle for the historian. i.e.: Social Darwinism was the social reaction to Darwin’s theory – but they only took what they wanted, or could use, to further support their schematic. In “The Descent of Man (1871),” Darwin addressed the different physicalities of non-Europeans and Europeans, he said:

But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species… Nevertheless, all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterized would probably deserve to rank as man.[1]

Not only does Darwin credit the different races of human being as all being human, but he also extends the right of manhood to the ancient progenitor. This says that all races are human, and the species that we came from also as being human – for modern science, that could classify the Lucy specimen as more human than primate. Society shifted the concepts around to fit their liking and industrialism benefited more from deeming certain humans as unfit – because they could be paid less or nothing, taken advantage of like livestock, and worked to death without society batting an eye. If society allowed all races natural human rights, then their workforce would take a direct hit. Society read that same passage, but they focused in on the word “sub-species” to indicate that sub was below or not as good as.

I watched “Schindler’s List” last night to set the mood for my eugenics piece and to remind me how brutal and inhumane it is to look around and decide that a certain mass of people no longer have the right to take up space. This is why eugenics has such an ugly dating card – but the blame should fall on the human office, or the “what we do with our information,” and not the information itself. If eugenics were only “limited breeding” based on health factors it rather makes sense. i.e.: If I knew that I had a “bad” gene that could be passed down and would hinder or destroy my child’s life, then I would take necessary precautions to either not have children or ask science to alter the “bad” gene – I would not throw caution to the wind and leave it up to chance. I will even go farther, to address the overpopulation fear – there are too many people living on the earth, and with the growth rate of 1 birth every 8 seconds, and only 1 death every 10 seconds, the earth is in a world of trouble – at this moment the world population is 7,297,467,699+.[2] This is where it is an individual problem – why does one family need more than a normal amount of people? This is not 1862, and Farmer Elijah does not need thirteen young pups to man his field, nor do people have rational fears that their young children will not survive to ten years old. The individual responsibility is to keep one’s family at a reasonable size so that one can give each child a good life.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Darwin, Charles. “The Descent of Man (1871).” Darwin:  A Norton Critical Edition, Texts, Commentary. 3rd ed. Ed. Phillip Appleman. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. pp. 175-254.

United States Census Bureau. “U.S. and World Population Clock.” 2016. Web. 8 Jan 2016. http://www.census.gov/popclock/

Picture c/o:  https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/47/22/82/4722825fcf7a9dbd67089499cb6ee153.jpg

[1] Darwin, “The Descent of Man (1871),” p. 245.

[2] Census, “World Population Clock,” 8 Jan 2016, 9:04 a.m.