BORG Are The Future

The BORG, as depicted in Star Trek: TNG, are the future of humanity, as presently intentioned by the majority of the resources of the present civilization.  I suggest that, although this wasn’t directly depicted in Star Trek, it is clear to me that, not content with total control of every individual and every environment at some point in the distant future, the BORG returned to the roots of their civilization, their intention to re-engineer earlier generations of themselves so that they could control not only their present, but their past, thus leading to an ever-increasing control over their future.  This is the ultimate logical extension of their vision… and, it is, effectively, the logical extension of the dominant vision of humanity at this time.

Current trends in society, especially in military science, and in the expanding efforts of trans-national corporations to dominate the resources of both the earth and its people, betray the seeds of the BORG.  The individuals that unwittingly contribute to that effort don’t realize it, but they are headed for a BORG future along with everyone else.  That is the logical extension of the efforts being undertaken.  The sooner it is admitted, the sooner a better path can be undertaken.  The path with heart, even if it means going back to an agrarian lifestyle, is worth way more than the life currently being built every day by the vast resources applied through government and these corporations in their efforts to increase domination and control for purely upwardly serving objectives.  The “upwardly served” are simply those who keep on top of the heap, or who command the construction and maintenance of the present Tower of Babel.  What they don’t realize is that death comes to all, and those who die, return.  But when returning, what is the likelihood that you will again get to be “on top of the heap?”

Confusing Effect for Cause

“[our] sense of adventure is located within the ventral striatum [of the brain]” — summary of a conclusion of experiments done by Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London) this week as given in Harper’s Magazine (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/07/WeeklyReview2008-07-01).

I wouldn’t doubt that the original study offers considerably more granularity than the above “conclusion” implies, but the quote is an example of how scientific studies influence the culture and indicates a significant problem as to how those studies are interpreted by the larger society, but also by scientists themselves.  In essence, it points to how frequently we confuse effect for cause.  And maybe how easily we throw up critical thinking and just accept the most convenient analysis that lays to hand.

Does the above conclusion mean that when I die my sense of adventure will cease?  Even scientists seem all too hasty these days to conclude that there is a direct causal relationship between co-existing phenomena, a mistake first-year philosophy students are rigorously trained to avoid.  Studies (especially dietary and health-related ones) often look at what occurs when something else occurs, and too easily conclude there is a unmediated causal relationship between the action itself and the observed effects.  One year “Coffee is good for the heart;” the next, “Coffee causes heart disease.”  Or some such.

But, all that aside, wouldn’t an equally plausible hypothesis (which is a temporary assertion, pending evidence) be that that region of the brain might be a location that helps the soul or trans-physical mind (i.e. the part of the individual that’s not merely an effect of the body system itself, but transcending that organism) negotiate new experiences harmoniously by integrating the various biological systems of the body around a chosen response?

Love Means Harmony

One of the challenges to modern industrial civilization has been how to determine (in the absence of so-called “conclusive” scientific evidence) whether a particular product or behavior of human beings is in fact detrimental to health and well-being. Often, there is no truly conclusive scientific evidence, especially with regard to the subtle. Results are subject to interpretation, interpretation subject to predisposition. Furthermore, the methods of rational argument can serve many masters. Principles of reason depend upon axioms, or accepted facts. The facts that determine the course of reason depend upon one’s point of view.

The answer is so simple that it escapes notice. But that doesn’t mean the answer is accepted or recognized as an answer, and there are many reasons for this.

The simple answer is, that if the product or behavior is not born of love, it is harmful.

So, how do we quantify this a little so that our stubborn, naturally self-serving mind can accept it, or even recognize it as having a reality apart from the appearance of pure, impractical ideology? I’ll use a personal experience as a starting point.

Today, while driving in to work, I was stopped at a traffic light and noticed the turn-signal of a local bus. The signal device was the type of LED array that’s frequently in use today on commercial vehicles as a turn-signal or break-light indicator. The quality of the blinking was, to my eye, distracting and somewhat unsettling. It would be analogous, I realized, to a person hitting me between the eyes at a regular frequency with a stick — not hard blows, of course, but noticeable enough to cause distraction and eventually create a sense of tension as the body begins to beg relief from a “mindless” sensory input. I say “mindless” because there was no principle to the blinking light, except as perceived within a very, very narrow context. It was blinking without regard to its environment, not aware at all. There was no effort to integrate this signal light with the human observer, except merely to proclaim its singular purpose, “This (vehicle) is turning right!”

In short, the turn signal was disturbing to my senses. Am I some kinda weeny or what? I don’t think so. It was not as if this was a major problem, at all. I could easily have simply ignored it, just as one normally does in one’s daily goings about in this busy world. Given the cacophony of the city streets, this was a subtle observation that could easily escape notice. But, is ignoring a subtle but disruptive sensory event enough to alchemize it’s effects into something innocuous, to say nothing of actually converting the experience into something comforting? This is actually a deep question, too deep for the scope of this article. So, suffice to say, that I think we find, just by the fact of how relaxing it is to visit the forest when one lives in the city, that in general individuals are distressed physically and mentally by sensory input that is not complimentary to the organic functioning of one’s body and beneficial to the mind’s capacity to appreciate order and purpose.

There’s a quote from a speech attributed to Chief Sealth (aka Chief Seattle), that was actually penned by a screenwriter in the sixties. Although it takes considerable license with the original speech (and here’s the most authentic version I could find of that: http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/ejournal/smith.htm), it does express the point I wish to make here rather well.

“The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man… There is no quiet place in the white man’s cities. No place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring, or the rustle of an insect’s wings…

The clatter only seems to insult the ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? …

The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of a pond, and the smell of the wind itself, cleaned by a midday rain, or scented with the pinion pine.”

What I’d like to stress with this quote is that because we have become so accustomed to our “noisy lifestyle” we are less aware, perhaps, of how disturbing is the violent nature of energy flow associated with our “ways.” If you were to chart the energy patterns of our modern civilization and compare them to that of nature, it would look like a square compared to a circle. Or, perhaps a saw-tooth sine-wave, compared to the normal circular wave.

A dichotomy that, I think, helps illuminate the essential point here is that of violence versus salutary conduct. Violent behavior involves sudden, high-impact actions, without a flowing, sinusoidal motion*. Salutary actions, those which encourage natural processes, are much more evenly flowing, and tend to “add to” the sinusoidal movements of natural systems. In fact, they add to the wave, they do not subtract from it as would the harmful type of action described.

In other words, our modern idea of life, our present choices with regard to applications of science (i.e. the current technology), our social norms and customs, are in many cases not additive in nature, not supportive of natural energy flows, but rather compete and contradict them. In short, they are not loving, they are destructive.

Obviously, I’m not talking about everything we do. I’m no crank. This is about the subtler aspects of what we do, our use of words, our ways of treating each other, and very importantly the way one treats one’s own self. It’s about how we build our buildings, how we cut our streets, how we transport these bodies from place to place, how we walk, how we eat. It’s about not THAT we do these things, but HOW we do them. Do we do them with love and respect, with appreciation and gratitude towards life and the inexplicable majesty of the living world? Or, do we act without regard for the ways life’s gift is given to us?

This question has become fundamental to the present time. There is no way to proceed more harmoniously without close introspection on the part of the individual, and without open discourse in the public forum, as to whether we honor the nature of life through love or continue to pursue self-serving ideologies through aggressive denial — as if somehow we can chop out a section of the world within which our own ideal of an isolated palace of self-indulgence can be created.

There is no separation, at all. And the unity the mind can perceive, is a unity of its own making. True unity, true harmony, is beyond mental conception. Only love teaches us about that. And that’s beyond the capacity of words to elucidate. Nevertheless, I’ve found in the amazing words of Rumi, Hafiz, Jesus, and many great sages, some hints for myself as to the reality of love. Perhaps in such works there is expressed an actual promise, or at least a blueprint and a chart leading to a greater life for each, and consequently, for all, in time. If nothing else, it is, I believe, an excellent place to start toward love as the foundation of one’s action and perception. Ultimately, that is the only thing that could produce a world in which we find ourselves less in a position of exposure to products of industry and human endeavor that cause so much harm.

          
*It’s pertinent to this point that the sinusoidal motion is actually a “give-and-take” kind of movement. It’s exactly like the exercise “push-hands” used in Tai Chi to exemplify the ideal quality of the circular give and take of energy that must occur in a properly practiced Tai Chi exercise. You and your partner touch hands and the only rule is that you must never release that contact, whether you’re pushing, or being pushed. The result is a natural, smooth (non-disruptive) energy flow. Try it! You’ll be amazed by the experience.

Is Technology for Profit the Best Use of Science?

That is the question.  Comments?

Geometry Determines Events in Space-Time

I read a ScienceDaily article this morning about creating an invisible tunnel in space-time using nano-scale materials geometries. This, with other things going on in nano-scale science, is more evidence for something that has seemed true to me for some time: geometry determines the course of events in space-time. I believe this was the real basis for “sacred geometry,” as well as explaining the impact of various geometries, like the positions of planets and constellations and the bending of space-time by a massive body. Shapes have resonance, thus channeling existing energies and events in specific ways. John Wheeler also once said, pg. 130 in Gravitation, published by Freeman in 1973, “geometry tells matter how to move, matter tells geometry how to curve” (not in connection with so-called metaphysical phenomena, as far as I know).  I’ve read elsewhere that by “geometry” he may have meant “space.”  And in that context, he was talking about curved space telling matter how to move, and matter telling space how to curve.  Anyone have any thoughts on this? I think it’s a profound and potentially powerful topic.