Damned Lies

Supposing you have not submitted to a doctrinal world view that inhibits you from asking “why?” of things, you’re probably interested in learning why things occur. The so-called holy grail of science is a theory of everything. It would be a theory that explains all of observable phenomena. If such is science’s aspiration, then science seeks knowledge of ultimate truth of the universe, yes? Such a theory would answere once and for all “why?”.

All of phenomenal existence is couched in this endless chain of cause-and-effect. This is an accpeted truth in science as well as in the esoteric teachings of many relgious traditions. As seekers of the Truth this recognition should encourage us to think deeper on this matter. All phenomena are inter-related.

At this point, however, we cannot blithly proceed on our journey to seeking truth until we get one thing out of the way. We need to have some idea of what exactly it is we seek to know. Generally, the notion of truth is taken to mean the way in which something truely exists. Any question of “why” or “how” is immediately answered by any statement of truth. If some condition of our existence is ultimately true, then it should be unchanging despite space and time. Our true nature should be the very lowest causal ground for all of phenomenal existence - the ever changing show of energy and perception that consitutes our life experienes.

So as sentient beings looking out into phenomenal existence all we seem to immediately possess is our view. Yet we seek Truth, unchanging, ultimate Truth of all things, including ourselves. Recognizing that perceptions are ever-changing we should again be encouraged to think upon this matter on a deeper level. So here we go.

What we want to know is: how does percieved phenomena become direct perception of Ultimate Truth? How can we stop our delusions and see things as they truely are? We each have a unique view of the world and of our place in it. How so? We each have different cognitive maps of the world and different conceptions of how we fit into it. All of our inner methods of categorizing, cognizing and percieving phenomena are different. So our task becomes to strip away all the things that cause the differences and see what remains. We then should be left with a view undifferentiated from individual to individual. A view that we have all disguised and overlooked in our own way. And yet something we all share in common. A view of our true natures. For such a view must include our true selves.

According to our above mentioned notion of Ultimate Truth, our view of Ultimate Truth should be unchanging in time. So it is truely timeless. Likewise it is unchanging no matter where we are. So it is unconditioned by space. Yet as sentient beings we are basically habituated to pervieving and cognizing all things in the frame work of space time. Then as long as we identify ourselves as sentient beings who are limited in this way, we cannot get beyond the conclusion that Ultimate Truth is inconcievable. Therefor to continue on our journey we need to de-identify with those parts of ourselves so as to see yet deeper.

We now believe that we are coming closer to our True selves, yet the things which made us all different were reveiled to be illusions. We begin to think, perhaps the individual never really existed. If the sentient being has a true nature then it is the same true nature of all things because sentient beings occur as a feature of phenomenal existence for a time.

There’s a book called Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski, a Polish Engineer who was born in 1879. In it he discusses his comprehensive linguistic and symbolic theory known as General Semantics. The essence of his arguments is that our language and the basic organization of the external world has been mistaken for reality. His book is long, so he discusses a number of applications and corollary ideas. Of these chapters the ones that obviously caught my attention were about mathematics.

Korzybski was a mathematician himself, too, so he did not speak ignorantly. His most radical proposition is that the basic construction of mathematics is similar to that of the human nervous system. Some might say they’re “isomorphic.” Why might this be? Mathematics is abstract, the human nervous system isn’t. It’s right here.

I finally realized what was meant by that this morning when I was reading Synergetics. Fuller says that experiments of the mind and of the abstract do not generally take into account the experimental environment. What is that? Our brains, basically. (He speaks of it as Universe, and then later explains.) To a further extent that includes the rest of our nervous system as well because it contributes to our experience of the world. The cerebral cortex, however, is the home of mathematics. And of abstract reasoning in general.

Indeed, each major breakthrough in the history of mathematics has been done by bringing to attention of the mathematicians new levels of abstraction. This is something mathematicians are often very proud of. Realizing even greater abstract environments in which current abstract constructions are being investigated is very stimulating! It unlocks whole new vistas of thought and conceptualization. It is, by far, the most evolved language that the human race has birthed. But it is still a language. Ergo it is a product of the nervous system. And since all biological creations take on an isomorphic structure to their progenitors, we reveal a new level of abstraction unlike any of those before in the history of mathematics.

I seem to spend a lot of time complaining about things that are going wrong with the world. It’s hard for me even to go buy groceries without mentally complaining to myself that there are advertisements everywhere, even on the floor. Or that all our main food providers are utterly corrupt and spend more on advertising than they do making sure the food is decent and healthy. This makes me a hypocrite because every morning and every evening I meditate and reflect on how dear humanity and all life is to me, and then I start my day and get caught up on qualities of our race that I despise. How can I even hope to maintain my vows and bring light into the lives of others’ if I have none myself? How can I help others see the truly big picture that reveals how small our problems are when I myself and so ignorant and small?

We have all heard the quote “Be the change you want to see in the world.” So mote it be!

Perhaps it is healthier to establish a tentative vision of our race and of all life on the space ship Earth that is free of all our current problems. Being kind and working for the benefit of others, though this may seem very naive to some jaded readers, does not mean that we don’t recognize qualities in others that ought to change. It is our subtle, unconscious vision of the world that determines the things that rule our day to day lives. In short, we project ourselves and our biases into everything we do, say and think. If you work to change yourself as if you lived in a more pure world then you are training yourself to see other peoples’ natural brilliance that they themselves have not yet seen. By generating unconditional love for others you are working towards your own self realization and you will recognize the natural purity of everything around you. Your vision will be confirmed.

What if, through your own stable and sure brilliance, others can become happy, too, just at the thought of you? They can forget about their woes and think about what you would say to them that sooths their pains. Through your realization you can bring others to see the big picture, too, just like the greatest minds in the history of our race. Krishnamurti, RBM Fuller, Buddha, and so on. Although we are certainly capable of forgetting these peoples’ wise words, we’re also capable to following them and attaining the same realizations that they did that frees us from our own self created hells. When we come out of our delusions and see that others still have not seen the big picture, and that they still suffer needlessly as a result, we naturally feel intense compassion for them. We naturally want them, too, to be free.

Let us create a chain of cause-effect actions sparked by our own initial actions motivated by love and with the intention of establishing a blissful utopia right here on earth. Or at least in your own mind.

What do you believe would be the symptoms of extraordinary neuroplasticity? An IQ that never ceases to increase? Rapid motor learning? Picking up languages like you were born in them? Math skills?

What if there is a more severe interpretation, one that is frightening to anyone possessing high neuroplasticity. You know depression? Psychological disorders like phobias? Imagine if they stopped being psychological. Imagine if experiences in life went beyond mere memory, and implanted themselves in your brain as trauma would to a child? Sure, you learn coping mechanisms, but what would that make you?

A problem from the xkcd blag

Alice secretly picks two different real numbers by an unknown process and puts them in two (abstract) envelopes.  Bob chooses one of the two envelopes randomly (with a fair coin toss), and shows you the number in that envelope.  You must now guess whether the number in the other, closed envelope is larger or smaller than the one you’ve seen.

Is there a strategy which gives you a better than 50% chance of guessing correctly, no matter what procedure Alice used to pick her numbers?

The answer is YES, but what is the strategy?

This exercise is useful when one attempts to move beyond one’s current belief structures. Record the the following in a soothing and authoritative manner five times into a tape recorder.
(start of belief unlimited tape)

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or becomes true within certain limits, to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are beliefs to be transcended.
Hidden from one’s self is a covert set of beliefs that control one’s thinking, one’s actions, and one’s feeling.
The covert set of hidden beliefs is the limiting set of beliefs to be transcended.
To transcend one’s limiting set, one establishes an open ended set of beliefs about the unknown.
The unknown exists in one’s goals for changing one’s self, in the means for changing, in the use of others for the change, in one’s capacity to change, in one’s orientation towards change, in one’s elimination of hindrances to change, in one’s assimilation of the aids to change, in one’s use of the impulse to change, in one’s need for changing, in the possibilities of change, in the form of change itself, and in the substance of change and of changing.
The unknown exists in one’s goals for changing one’s self, in the means for changing, in the use of others for the change, in one’s capacity to change, in one’s orientation towards change, in one’s elimination of hindrances to change, in one’s assimilation of the aids to change, in one’s use of the impulse to change, in one’s need for changing, in the possibilities of change, in the form of change itself, and in the substance of change and of changing.
There are unknowns in my goals towards changing.There are unknowns in my means of changing. There are unknowns in my relations with others in changing. There are unknowns in my capacity for changing. There are unknowns in my orientation towards changing. There are unknowns in my assimilation of changes. There are unknowns in my needs for changing. There are unknowns in my possibilities of me changing. There are unknowns in the forms into which changing will put me. There are unknowns in the substance of the changes that I will undergo, in my substance after changes.
My disbelief in all these unknowns is a limiting belief, preventing my transcending my limits. My disbelief in all these unknowns is a belief, a limiting belief, preventing my transcending my limits.
By allowing, there are no limits; no limits to thinking, no limits to feeling, no limits to movement. By allowing, there are no limits. There are no limits to thinking, no limits to feeling, no limits to movement.
That which is not allowed is forbidden. That which is allowed exists. In allowing no limits, there are no limits. That which is forbidden is not allowed. That which is not allowed forbidden. That which exists is allowed. That which is allowed, exists. In allowing no limits, there are no limits. That which is not allowed is forbidden. That which is forbidden is not allowed. That which is allowed, exists. That which exists is allowed. To allow no limits, there are no limits. No limits allowed, no limits exist.
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or becomes true. In the province of the mind there are no limits. In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or becomes true. There are no limits.

(end of Belief Unlimited tape)
(from The centre of the cyclone an autobiography of inner space by John C. Lilly,M.D.)

When listening to the tape, lie in a comfortable position on the floor with the lights very dim and just allow the words and meaning to enter you without any resistance.

What do you do when a hypothesis fails to be either TRUE or FALSE? And I was gonna use Cantor’s Continuum Hypothesis as an example. But then I remembered that it can still either be TRUE xor FALSE since all Godel and Cohen did was show that it can’t be proven/disproven under the Zermelo Fankle Axioms of set theory.

Ever notice how people look up when they pray as if they’re looking directly towards God? Well this has some awkward mathematical connotations. Unless you’re praying at the north or south poles, it stands to reason that if everyone’s looking at God then God must be topologically isomorphic to a giant torus around the earth. So either religious people can admit to donut shaped God or go back to the flat earth theory to account for this.

HMMMMM