Where you been?… 5 Sightings

I have not blogged for so long that I cannot remember the last thing I wrote. Since moving to the Denver area, my days have been pleasantly full. For the past few weeks, my attentions were focused on my doctoral application process for the University of Denver. Currently, the application is awaiting the GRE score {gnashing of teeth}. I do not want to think about my score so no details…know only that I am a poor tester.

1.  I joined Lighthouse Writers.

I love the community involvement provided. Lighthouse Writers participate in “Writing the City” and “Friday 500.” In October, we toured the Clyfford Still Museum and wrote on his “Works on Paper” collection. I read my piece, “Lady of Misery,” at the museum’s 5yr anniversary gala on 18 November 2016. LW collaborate with museums and art galleries as means of relaying artistic expression through diverse media. A text of the poems will be available in 2017. Also, I took my first workshop “Weird World Building” with Prof. Lumans. We read Neil Gaiman’s American Gods, discussed symbolism, and participated in writing exercises. Lighthouse spring courses begin in January, and I have not decided yet which workshop I want. Click HERE for Lighthouse Writers website; online courses available.

2.  The Denver music scene is a challenge.

There are so many bands to choose from, selecting a show is a mini-ordeal. One ultimate truth:  music relies on subjective preference. lol. Just because a friend says it’s the “best band, you’ll love them!” – does not mean that the band is even something you classify as “music.” For me – a writer, a thinker, a reader – I need words. If there are no lyrics in your music, then there is no direction for my mind to follow. Instead, it just loops and loops in eternal “warm-up” phase. No thank you<>. So…I am trying to make room for EDM – ole girl just needs a few words thrown into the mix. Sorry, Tag and all the editors at Punchland.com – I wanted to send you loads of cool reviews and write-ups. Sadly, I cannot corral enough positive thoughts to write about the music I’ve experienced. Instead, I would be writing on the “festival goers” dependency on drugs …and, in my opinion, if one must take the drugs to enjoy the music, then…the music must not be that good to begin with. But that’s just me, and I am not into drugs or bad music. I like my music lean on additives and full of meaning.

We saw Maynard from Tool – twice. We went to the concert and then attended his book reading. The concert was amazing! Even though Maynard forbid photographs and videos, I saw some posted on YouTube. I opted for the official video here because I want to honor the artist’s request. Seeing the show was great, however, the book ended up being written by Sarah Jensen, and the reading  – lmfao – was confused by most of his fans with a show. Click HERE for some reviews, many of which sound like they were written by website employees. First book reading I’ve ever been to where the audience screamed out, “Fuck Yeah Man!” and ticket-holders were so drunk they literally fell down. It would have all been worth it if the book was awesome. Sadly, it is not. The book begins in Maynard’s childhood – which is fine – but…Maynard didn’t have a traumatic childhood experience. The audience, at least this chick right here, expects a meaty, horrid, dark, and twisted tale. Instead, Maynard’s childhood is typical suburban America, a product of divorce. What I mean is – his childhood was average, the author could have skipped over it or quickly summarized. I am now on “skim reading,” searching for something of interest. But this text will go in the donation pile as it does not benefit my library. Not only that, but I have also lost respect for Maynard. Adding insult to injury, Maynard discussed how society should move away from capital gain and expect to give more than one takes – a sound idea, yet he is not leading by example. Music provides him with plenty of income, adding this book shows how capitalistic even the Artists can be.  And that makes me terribly sad.

3.  HLCA Global Conference 2016

Attending and presenting at The Humanities, Literature, Cultures, and Arts Global Conference 2016 cemented my desire for doctoral studies. I found “my people” in other academics. I cannot describe the energy, passion, and momentum present at conference. I only know that this is the place I belong. I am a scholar, and I crave company with other scholars. Why talk about sports or recipes when we can talk RESEARCH? O Philosophy! we can talk research! I cannot stress how refreshed I am at the notion that there is a sect of people who are interested in topics I contemplate. A network of Otherly thinkers is within grasp. In short:  I am not standing alone – “The Cheese” comes in many fragrant samplings.

4.  President-Elect Donald Trump…the election, it happened.

The before-and-after effects of the election are upsetting. What upsets me is the political process, the electoral college, and the mass usage of misinformation. When “Freedom of Speech” is exploited, is the action still “free”? There are so many controversial issues within politics that pointing the finger at figure-heads just seems silly. Read Democracy by Henry James; click HERE for a free download. The President is not the only one who needs an attitude adjustment – society is acting childish on both sides. The scary part is that real-deal ethics suffer, regardless who “wins.”

I advise each person to remember that they are an Individual, and individuals are responsible for their own actions. I cannot change the world, but I can change myself. I can be mindful of my actions, thoughts, and words. One trick I use – anytime I immediately want or reject something, I ask myself why I am feeling that way. I question my motives to see if they are, in fact, original and my own, or if the motive was learned.

{The Coffee Test:  Americans wake in the morning and automatically have coffee. Ask the self, “Why do I drink coffee? Do I like it / depend on it? Do I drink it because that is what people drink in the morning? Do I really want a cup of coffee?” …well, do you? Or do you drink coffee in the morning because your dad does, and drinking coffee signifies that you are an adult? I drink coffee whenever I want because I like the hot cup in my hand.}

Choices. Every Individual must choose and then accept responsibility for their choices.

5.  Secular Holiday Guide:  What Non-Believers can do – Create their own Rituals

The Secular Student Alliance developed a Winter Solstice Event Guide. Click HERE for the Secular Student website, the guide is available for free download. The concept of ritual does not have to be removed for Free Thinkers. Humanity develops ritual and meaning by joining together. Personally, the Winter Solstice holds meaning as it signifies life surviving through harsh conditions. It means life continues on, regardless of the climate, despite the shorter days. And we, advanced humans, continue adapting, protecting ourselves from snow, wind, storm, and sea. Winter Solstice reminds me that life may struggle, but that the struggle produces a grand result. For nature, the result being Spring / rebirth.

Apply the concept with one’s life – what lessons did you learn by surviving your own struggle, your own Winter? …more than likely, you learned invaluable lessons that could not have been taught<>

Happy Whatever-Holiday-You-Honor, dear Readers…

Angela, MmeWriter / MmePhilosopher

Advertisement

Where you been Ole Girl?…

On Becoming…

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

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.

Grades Posted …{le bow}

Humanities 571 Individuals, Societies, and the Spirit

{or…what will forever be the “religion” class I survived}

Survived may not be the right word. Ole girl managed to pull off a 98% on the final paper and score an overall 96.7% for the course! As expected – good news and bad news with these results. First off – the bad so the good will have a final word.

Bad News:

1.  For me, a 96 is a low or just barely, an A – my other pieces from the last four to five courses have shown high A’s, as in 100% ‘ers.
2. I know I promised to post my last integral essay – a look at the sociological authority found in music and collective effervescence. However, since Prof finally gave me a good review, and declared that with a few grammatical corrections – the paper is publishable! {yes, this is the good, lol} Why it could be viewed as “bad” is that I cannot post the piece online as I will adjust for publication.

Good News:

1.  My writing confidence is restored. Over the last sixteen weeks, Prof has not enjoyed my style, word choice, or ability. His comments greatly affected my ability to write as I constantly questioned every thought I formed. But now, in this final piece, Prof turned the tide and accepted my writing.
2.  I may be able to publish this essay! Seeing the words “this piece is publishable with a few tweaks” made my day.
3.  571 was my last course before the Capstone. The light at the end of the tunnel is flashing a “go ahead” sign, permitting me access to proceed towards my goal.
4.  I, hopefully, will never have to read Weber or Bellah again {fingers crossed}.

The good outweighs the bad. I am happy with the 98% on the piece, and the possibility of publication. I learned a great deal in HUMN 571 – I think the most important grain is that “religion” is actually a means to form society. If dogma is removed, what is left is society. With this in mind, I am less hostile towards religion. I see it more as a means than an ends. This could be why I am so put-off by current Humanism and Atheism attempts at thwarting religion – because it’s not about dogma. Religion is community, or individuals working together to improve their environment.

 

Picture c/o:  http://previews.123rf.com/images/alexmillos/alexmillos1104/alexmillos110400461/9336277-Pen-and-paper-success-sign–Stock-Vector.jpg

Reading Notes on “Twilight of the Idols”

When Leisure runs with Research

My session is nearing the end, two more weeks. I have minimal assignments due, and I note that I work much better under pressure. A few months ago, while carrying three courses, I thrived. Much writing and contemplation was required. Now, I have only one topic. And – as a cruel twist – I have to say that I am not real fired-up about said topic. The sad part is, I could be. Maybe one day, my non-traditional thinking will be noted as “ahead of her time” but for the present…’tis socially conditioned that I retreat “back to the mountain.”

Off I crawl, licking my wounds inflicted by society’s barbs, with a text from Herr Professor clung to my breast. Searching for inspiration. {for Life in general, not for the piece} However, while beginning my read the other night, one of Nietzsche’s maxims jumped out at me. Well…much of Nietzsche explodes off the page, but this one, it felt so true I have to share:

“There are times when we psychologists are like horses, and grow fretful. We see our own shadow rise and fall before us. The psychologist must look away from himself if he wishes to see anything at all” (Nietzsche 35).

The quote reminds me to remove myself from philosophical consideration as well as interaction with society in efforts to see the issue – whatever that may be – through an objective lens. By making the situation just that, a situation or a happening, instead of my situation, the experience may be noted from more than one perspective. Applying this to life, I see this method as able to reduce emotional connection to an experience. To look at problems as puzzle pieces to put together – the important factor is that the “I” is assembling the puzzle and not just another piece.

 

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Twilight of the Idols (1888). Trans. Anthony M. Ludovici. Ed. Dennis Sweet. New York:  Barnes&Noble, 2008.

Picture c/o:  http://www.jamesmaybe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Dominic_Rouse-Twilight_of_the_idols.jpg

Darwinism: the Most Revolutionary Movement in Science

Which scientific revolution incurred the most change?

While revolutions in thought were present in chemistry, cosmology, geology, and physics, the most altering discoveries were in biology via Charles Darwin’s considerations for evolution through natural selection and adaptation of species. The fundamentals of evolutionary thought seized society with an urgency to unite scientific theory with everything, applying direct causation via biological matter to reality. Darwin’s dangerous ideas disrupted the religious hold on society by preferring scientific method and empirical evidence to scholastic considerations of the Golden era. Bowler and Morus said, “The original Darwinian revolution turned out to be only a transition to an evolutionary interpretation of an already-existing worldview based on faith in the idea of progress as the product of divine providence or of nature’s laws.”[1] Darwinism, and later biology, oriented the human being as an organism victim to alteration by its environment to encourage continuation of species. However, it would not be until the twentieth-century that society adapted the notion of the effects of a nurturing environment as able to improve the nature of humans. Victorians believed: “Environmental effects are powerless to alter the characteristics inherited by the child from its parents,”[2] but genetic discoveries would reveal the human ability to adapt based on external factors incorporated through experience.

 

Yes, cosmology demonstrated a scientific revolution. Astronomers of the 1930s agreed about the shape of the universe, but instead of considering the system as static they saw it as dynamic or a universe that was producing energy; Bowler and Morus said, “No longer was the galaxy that human beings inhabit to be considered as the center of the universe.”[3] The Milky Way was one of a number of other galaxies; much like humans were not unique creations but evolved animal species, the universe resided in one galaxy of many of galaxies. Bowler and Morus said, “From that perspective, the transformation might certainly be regarded as truly revolutionary in the same sense that the Copernican revolution was.”[4] Early twentieth-century held a revolution in the understanding of space and time. Relativistic physics replaced Newtonian theory, Bowler and Morus said, “…replaced with the standpoint that time and space were relative to the position and velocity of the observer.”[5]

 

In “The Elegant Universe” PBS Nova discussed Quantum Theory, a possibility that multiple realities existed in different dimensions of time. Based on statistical data, Quantum theory dealt with extremely small matter, atomic elements of protons and the nucleus, that Einstein’s theory of gravity did not effect or relate.[6] Modern scientists, since the 1970s, developed String Theory to unite “heavy” science with small science. Working with the stuff of Einstein’s dreams, as inspired by his notebooks and personal record, Alan Lightman wrote Einstein’s Dreams to illustrate the creative spirit of the famous scientist. Einstein questioned everything, and while he did not agree with quantum theories, Lightman showed that Einstein thought more than one possibility could exist. 14 April 1905: “Suppose time is a circle, bending back on itself. The world repeats itself, precisely, endlessly.”[7] And later, on 14 May 1905: “There is a place where time stands still. Raindrops hang motionless in air. Pendulums of clocks float mid-swing. … Pedestrians are frozen on the dusty streets, their legs cocked as if held by strings.”[8] Einstein allowed room for the possibility of alternate time and space, but he rejected quantum theory. Is his rejection due to gravity not be unified? What would Einstein have thought of String theory?

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

“The Elegant Universe.” PBS Nova, 10 Aug 2014. YouTube.com. Online video. 25 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:  http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AJA5JD/the-survival-of-the-fittest-application-of-darwinism-in-the-21st-century-AJA5JD.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 161.

[2] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 158.

[3] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 286.

[4] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 286.

[5] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 287.

[6] PBS, “The Elegant Universe.”

[7] Alan Lightman, Einstein’s Dreams, p. 8.

[8] Alan Lightman, Einstein’s Dreams, p. 8.

Science, Industry, and Francis Galton’s Eugenic-Lie

The scientists did not want to only have a theory, they wanted to realize that theory in a practical model and test it out. Nineteenth-century had set up the mold for science to experiment – the goal could not happen without experimentation and observation. Theory, once held as natural philosophic abstract ideals, wanted to be tested. In efforts to afford physical models, science had to let industry and the military in on the scam. Bowler and Morus discussed the interwar period in which small numbers of civilian scientists were maintained for military or industrial research; they said, “There were now more applied scientists working in industry, including the armaments and aircraft industries.”[1]Industry and the military presented science with purpose and means to further research and technology, and the scientists were able to take their thoughts and form them into actions – surely a cathartic moment for their mental energies.

{Peer} comparison Darwin::biology as Einstein::physics is so true! Brilliant. As for the terrifying notion of Germany formulating a bomb before the Allies, I cannot lend too many moments thoughts to how catastrophic that would have been as the realities of the Holocaust are already too morbid for reality. My research paper was on eugenics. While I already knew there were ugly truths that lived in the topic, I was further shocked to discover that the initial theory of Darwin’s involving blood heredity – the issue which ignited racism and gave it more power – was known to be false! Society wanted it to be true, so they accepted it as scientific proof.

Rabbit Blood and Gemmules

Galton’s experiments with rabbit blood transfusion failed, and Romanes, an additional scientist, also failed in procedure. The theory was wrong. Alfred Wallace, as noted by David J. Galton, said Galton was wrong: “Because of the extreme constancy and severity of elimination of individuals through survival of the fittest … such abrupt variants could never become permanently established in a breeding population and so could play no role in its evolution.”[2] One’s racial factors did not determine if they could survive, it did not affect evolution. Eugenics was built on false theory, a ‘gemmule’ theory that Darwin himself did not publish because he could not prove it. His cousin, Francis Galton, ran with the theory because it supported his racist concept not because it was true. I think this is a message that {Professor}, and history herself, is relaying to the new historian: subjective-value does not truth make. In the paper, I displayed Galton’s “truth” and historical truth. What I think is valuable though, is that this Truth about the falsity of racism is not further exposed. What I mean is – I have been studying and researching for roughly twenty years of my life, and NOW is the first time I come upon evidence that proves through experimented failure that race is not a contributing factor to nature. Why do history and anthropology teachers not lead with this concept? It answers so many questions for me. It exposes the fact that science is victim to its human conductor – Galton wanted white Europeans to be superior, and so did society, so they exploited “bad science” to make it happen.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Galton, David J. Man of Science, Man of God: Gregor Mendel Discovering the Gene. Great Britain: Timaeus Press, 2015.

Picture c/o:  https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/styles/the_breaking_news_image_style/public/Pictures/web/y/b/b/miles-cole-illustration-091014.jpg?itok=IcA-eRPR and http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Image-12_Only-healthy-seed-must-be-sown-950.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 468.

[2] David J. Galton, Man of Science, Man of God, p. 130.

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

Scientific Military

Purposeful Science finds Funds/Usefulness in Military Effort

Military systems are ordered under the chain of command, and service members follow orders without asking questions. Soldiers who do not agree with their commands still have to follow them, that is the way the MRE crumbles. During wartime, if a soldier refuses to follow a direct command, he may be shot in the head immediately by his commanding officer. No trial, no argument – follow the orders the superiors dictate. When faced with a moral concern, the soldier is ultimately to follow orders. Science disagrees with this approach. For one thing, scientists who are able to create weapons of mass destruction are burdened with the moral issue: is it right and just to create these weapons? Once materialized, the scientists do not possess the authority to restrict the military – or rogue nations – from using the weapons to destroy life. The aim of science to understand natural life, not destroy it.

The military has a ruthless approach. The object of the service is to protect, defend, and sustain. The military accepts that certain loses must happen to better the whole, but they accept this on a literal level. If a group of 100 people can be saved by one man dying, then military reason says the one man should feel honored to die for the glory and safety of his country. There is an enlisted job/specialty that literally is an enlisted soldier who follows the Chaplin around (everywhere he goes). That soldier’s “real” job is to jump in front of the Chaplin if he is attacked to save his life because his job is to bring support to the masses. Military morality is different because it is flexible according to the demands of the nation.

Bowler and Morus noted that many scientists are pacifists. In 1939, Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt to begin constructing the bomb because he feared that the Axis forces would be able to make a bomb.[1] The Allies would need the Atomic bomb for defense purposes. The arms race (and later space race) created great anxiety for scientists because they wanted funding for research but did not like kneeling to the ways of the military.

The scientists wanted to test their theories about the atom, and due to the high cost of the research required, science found funding with the military. Science had assisted the service during WWI, and especially the Navy with technology produced to communicate via radar, sonar, and radio.[2] Using scientific method, the scientists approached the military problems with reason and theory. Scientists were advising the military – different branches including biology and physicists.[3]

Einstein was excluded from the Manhattan Project, and much to the scientists dismay, Brigadier General Leslie Groves took command. Robert Oppenheimer was a leading physicist, and his team of civilians and scientists: “…were not simply taking orders from the military and were free to think about the consequences of what they were doing”[4] in which allowed major debates about the moral concerns regarding the bombs construction. However, the members of the Manhattan Project believed they were trying to beat Germany, and therefore, they patriotically participated. Science cooperated with the military and industry so that they had practical means to back their experimentation process. Bowler and Morus said, “In a sense, the Manhattan Project was changing the way science was done, requiring leading scientists to engage in much closer cooperation with military and industrial interests.”[5]

As science continued to shift away from theoretical and abstract purposes towards practical uses, the military eagerly demonstrated the need and embraced for weapon advancement and wartime strategic technologies. Russia took over as villain once Germany was defeated, and the hydrogen bomb, along with the cold war scare, would dominate America from the 1950s on, only losing steam at the fall of communist Russia. C.M. Mody Cyrus said, “Evidence of mobilization was everywhere, from the Manhattan Project to the space race to the civil rights movement to the “wars” on poverty, drugs, and cancer.”[6] After WWII, the Cold War gripped the nations in an icy fear that: “each superpower was acutely aware that not pursuing even the most outrageous visions could result in a victory for the other side.”[7] Scientific advance was found in “big science,” which looked to funding from the military and industry.

Bowler and Morus noted that Oppenheimer had contact with left-wing organizations and fell victim to persecution by McCarthy and the Red Scare.[8] I remember during my childhood, the 1980s, the intense animosity for Russia and all things non-democratic. In elementary school, we had nuclear drills like the kids have fire drills. The alarm was even more annoying, and the students filed out into the hall, faced the wall and sat down with crossed legs. As a kid, I remember thinking, “How is sitting in the hall going to keep us safe from a bomb?” Now, I think they did it so that everyone would be together and try to stay calm as long as possible. Realistically, if the school were hit with a nuclear bomb, everyone is done – does not matter if you sat cross or straight legged. What is scary is, at that point, all humanity can do is calmly prepare to be decimated. {le sigh}

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

Cyrus, C.M. Mody. “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.”Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 38.3 (2008): 451-461. Edge.apus.edu. Web. 20 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Telephony_Class_NGM-v31-p357.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 473.

[2] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 470.

[3] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 471.

[4] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 474.

[5] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 475.

[6] Cyrus, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” p. 452.

[7] Cyrus, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” p. 452.

[8] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 480.

Chemical Warfare, WWII, the Atomic Bomb, and Einstein

Einstein the Pacifist

Due to the construction of the atomic bomb, I feel that Einstein offered the greatest impact to science for the twentieth-century. Specifically because of the mass destruction that the A-bomb enforced, science was able to create unimaginable horrors to inflict upon its enemy. The military turned to science for warfare development and gained immeasurably due to advancing technologies such as automatic machine-guns, chemical gases, and biological weapons. As a local historian, I assisted in founding in the WWII History Project for Fairmont State University in 2005-2006 by interviewing civilians and veterans involved in the effort. The process consisted of a personalized account of the individual’s experience with the war, followed by the interviewer’s questions, and recorded on video for later transcription. The documents were then transferred to the National Library for permanent record. One of the civilians I interviewed was a woman from West Virginia who applied for a government job she noticed listed in the newspaper. She applied and was excited when she found out that she would be flying in a plane for the first time to her new job. She worked in a factory making parts for the government. Later, she found out that the parts she was constructing were components to the atomic bomb. Apparently, for security purposes and to prevent society from learning of the atrocious abilities of nuclear warfare, there were only a handful of individuals who knew what was being built – and chances were that if they knew, they still would not know where the parts were located.

Bowler and Morus discussed the importance of chemical war as the military turned to science for better explosives and poisonous gases from 1914-1918.[1]Science and the military did not always agree, but the military saw scientific ability as useful for purposes of war. Even if the military asking for service did not want to use harmful substances, they did not want the enemy to be able to construct a substance that they did not understand or know how to create in terms of defense. Bowler and Morus said, “The British and the French responded much more rapidly than the Germans expected, and the rest of the war saw a succession of developments including the use of gas shells and the introduction of new chemicals such as mustard gas.”[2]

The fear of the enemy advancing to surpass their level of scientific success terrorized the Allied forces during WWII. If the Allies knew about the ability to create an atomic bomb, then the possibility that the information could be discovered by the Axis force, and used against whole cities was a real threat. In efforts to surpass Hitler, the Manhattan Project formed to develop the bomb: “When Heisenberg and his colleagues were interrogated after their capture by the Allies, it became clear that they had vastly overestimated the critical mass needed to start a chain reaction in uranium and had told the German military that the bomb could not be made.”[3] German science, fortunately, had not been able to advance as the Allies feared. The military seized control of scientific research and procedure, and “Oppenheimer realized that scientists would have to learn to work in these new ways if they were to have any influence over what was being done with their work.”[4]

While his theories may have depended on concepts formulated by Michelson and Morey, Einstein successfully married the refutation of ether with his theories of relativity.[5] Ofer Ashkenazi noted Einstein’s attachment to the peace movement even though his discoveries were used to construct the Atomic bomb.[6] Einstein interacted with political officials in efforts to work towards peace in avoidance of conflict, death, or suffrage. Ashkenazi said, “The shift of emphasis from the national to the transnational aspects of the anti-war struggle thus places Einstein’s views and activity well within the framework of the mainstream peace movement.”[7] Why then, would Einstein ever agree to formulate the bomb? Ashkenazi noted Einstein accepted the notion of defense but was a pacifist.[8] He agreed to assist the military as means of preserving peace; after Hitler stormed Europe, Einstein could no longer claim to be a pacifist.[9] Doug Long said, “Einstein’s greatest role in the invention of the atomic bomb was signing a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging that the bomb be built.”[10] Vannavar Bush did not trust Einstein to keep the project secret, and the scientist was excluded from production. In the end, Einstein regretted advising for the bomb to be built, but he was so afraid that Germany would build one first – Einstein made sure the Allies had the bomb first.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ashkenazi, Ofer. “Reframing the Interwar Peace Movement: The Curious Case of Albert Einstein.” Journal of Contemporary History, 46.4 (2011): 741-766. JSTOR. Web. 19 Jan 2016.

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

Long, Doug. “Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb.” Unk. date. Webpage. www.doug-long.com/Einstein.htm 19 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:  http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/1946-Einstein-Time-magazine-detail.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 465.

[2] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p.467.

[3] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 472.

[4] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 475.

[5] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 264.

[6] Ashkenazi, “Reframing the Interwar Peace Movement: The Curious Case of Albert Einstein,” Journal of Contemporary History, p. 742.

[7] Ashkenazi, “Reframing the Interwar Peace Movement: The Curious Case of Albert Einstein,” Journal of Contemporary History, p. 743.

[8] Ashkenazi, “Reframing the Interwar Peace Movement: The Curious Case of Albert Einstein,” Journal of Contemporary History, p. 741-2.

[9] Long, “Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb.”

[10] Long, “Albert Einstein and the Atomic Bomb.”

Social Implications on Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

Darwin’s discoveries were debated because he was not able to offer substantial evidence – one of the reasons he waited twenty years to publish Origin of Species. The social aspects of the response to Darwin’s theory showed society taking natural selection’s abilities into the communal sphere of reality, encouraging capitalism. Bowler and Morus said, “Others stress the parallel between natural selection and the competitive ideology of Victorian capitalism and see Darwin as someone who projected the social values of his own class onto nature itself.”[1] So much for objectivity in masculine science, <smh> smells like corruption through propaganda – after all, Darwin did say that the female skull and brain were smaller than males, and therefore less intelligent and less capable of developing intelligence; he devoted a section to The Descent of Man (1871) entitled “Difference in the Mental Powers of the Two Sexes,” and he summarized in one line: “Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman.”[2] Women were noted as less selfish than men as means to take care of their offspring and subject themselves to male domination – backing up the “cult of domesticity” and place of woman – while man delighted and benefited from competition, thriving on selfish ambition and intellectual powers above lower, and sexually centered, woman.[3] Intellectual powers for males included: observation, reason, invention, or imagination,[4] because they benefited the hunt and were attached to the outside world was woman was chained to the household, her life revolving around producing and rearing children. Evelleen Richards highlighted the negative social issues at play via education limitations that showed few women were allowed or accepted into university – and if they were, it was even less seldom in masculine fields such as science or mathematics.[5] Richards quoted J.N. Burstyn from “Education and Sex: The Medical Case against Higher Education for Women in England, 1870-1900,” and said, “It seemed only a matter of time before middle-class women not only gained the franchise, but would be able to take out degrees and compete professionally with men …”[6] Men did not want to compete with woman possibly for fear of being less intelligent than her, nor did he want to allow room for his servant-wife to grow consciousness and a spine.

Some men, however, took advantage of wealthy women who pined for purpose and a voice: Francesco Algarotti, a Venetian merchant, took to travel and writing to grant him a luxurious salon-life he was accustomed to as protégé of Marchioness Elisabetta Ratta for his poetry and support.[7] He received much contempt from literature and science because, as an author and artist, he was not qualified or respected as a scientist. Algarotti, funded by his ladies, wrote appropriately to address female issues and aptitude. He addressed the ladies because their emotional nature responded to the attention – other male scientists shrugged women off as incapable of being scientists, taking support through Darwin who saw the place of woman as purely sexual and not able to reason like men.[8] Women were attributed as more emotional than men and therefore unable to achieve pure objectivity. As we have discussed in previous weeks, the human ability to remain objective is an impossible feat as each individual is reflective of their own values of societal or religious connotation – elements to cloud reason or form it, dependent on how one thinks. So why then is this imaginary “objectivity” not extended to female scientists if it is extended to males? Well, another aspect of rejected feminist thought might be of use; Bowler and Morus noted the contradictory starting point between gender: “Men typically regard themselves as apart from nature and therefore as needing to be able to control it, while women typically regard themselves as part of nature and therefore as being in harmony with it.”[9] Male scientists want to control nature and women – unfortunately, this whole scam is still going down. Male science may be keeping female scientific-thought out of science for the specific purpose of maintaining control of society and re-instilling the world-view of the earth as a machine because it is more profitable to humankind in terms of progress. If the major consent in society recognized the earth as a living entity then the average “good-natured” person would not want to harm, rape, or destroy anything alive. Women by nature are more empathetic than men, on average, and more emotional – but they are also subject to suppression, and the feminine cause can be attached to many of humanity’s list of victims such as the abolition movement in America that displayed women championing the cause of the oppressed African-American before she had the right to vote herself. It only seems natural then, to saddle the feminine with Mother-Earth to relate to victimization at the hands of the masculine force.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

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

Mazzotti, Massimo. “Newton for Ladies: Gentility, Gender and Radical Culture.” British Journal for the History of Science, 37.133: p. 119-46 ProQuest. Web. 31 Dec 2015.

Richards, Evelleen. “Darwin and the Descent of Woman (1983).” Darwin:  A Norton Critical Edition, Texts, Commentary. 3^rd ed. Ed. Phillip Appleman. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. pp. 435-444.

Picture c/o:  http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/6464667_f260.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 143.

[2] Darwin, “The Descent of Man (1871),” p. 234-235.

[3] Darwin, “The Descent of Man (1871),” p. 234-235.

[4] Darwin, “The Descent of Man (1871),” p. 235.

[5] Richards, “Darwin and the Descent of Woman (1983),” p. 441.

[6] Richards, “Darwin and the Descent of Woman (1983),” p. 441.

[7] Mazzotti, “Newton for Ladies: Gentility, Gender and Radical Culture,” p. 124.

[8] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 503.

[9] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 505.