I have been reading some of the computer historians, causing me to reflect on my own current thought. Whenever I use the computer too long, I get a pain between my shoulderblades. We got infatuated with PCs running DOS. Then engaged when we made the first DBASE program, or Lisp, or even LOGO graphic on a 64 bit. We got married when the world wide web came along, and began conducting relationships and business over the internet. A revolution!
Now that the divorce has begun, or at least the separation, I would rather spend an hour on the computer, and go outside and trim some trees, or get a glimpse of that baby blue heron. We have always been a part of something that is bigger than the world wide web. I think buddha said that, or could be fairly translated as having said it, but we had to see it on a tv screen to really appreciate it. The internet is a big change, as big as photography, the invention of trains, or even the automobile or tv. Maybe even rivals the printing press or the growth of cities. But like them, it doesn't provide content. Its a better printing press.
The problem with computers is that they have no brain. Whenever I sit down to sputter out a few thoughts, I invariably start a new file. The computer is a filing system with no system. A nervous system with no center. Perhaps google is starting to address the problem, putting search on the desktop, at least making a system database. But its barely a beginning. Its the basic challenge to making the tool more rational. The desktop operating system itself is flawed by a lack of organizational skills. The internet is a collection of these inherently unorganized units. The organization of files is the basic problem we spend so much time and money trying to figure out how to store, retrieve and link together with PLM, ERP - solutions that are huge unwieldy rigid unrelenting expenses. But the basic disorganization exists at the PC level.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Sunday, July 17, 2005
the old iceberg theory
this morning i woke suddenly from a deep sleep - squalling, fighting cats outside my window. the neighbor tomcats terrorize my peaceful, fixed cats. i chased him off, went back to bed. then i remembered the dream i was having as i awoke. it was not profound, but i was there, on a roller coaster, trying to keep things from falling out, and later telling someone who had also been on the ride about it. there were details, conversation, thoughts, i was sitting then i was standing. to me in the dream, it was not a question of whether it was real or not.
now, what really struck me, is, how many other dreams like that with people, things, words, details, did i have last night that i dont remember? i only remember this one because i woke suddenly in the middle of it. how many other rich complete situations have happened to me this year that part of me knows about and part of me does not remember?
why does the unconscious seem to have more going on than the conscious? why does the unconscious seem to have so much to do? why does the conscious seem to be so in the dark? unknowing. I have forgotten more than i know.
the scientists belittle and dismiss, oh that is just a brain rewind, a chemical sputter, a hormonal balancing. campbell says myths are an attempt to tell the unconscious story to the conscious. there is a pattern with meditation. deep concentration leads to dreamlike images, if the conscious mind stirs, they are chased away. meditation is a search for unconscious light. behind every unconscious fluid image, is light. when it bursts through, that is the only goal of meditation.
perhaps the great novelists learn how to let their unconscious weave a story, without letting their conscious self step in and police the action. the conscious can handle the grammar. characters and events which ring true and have their own existence have to come from a richer source.
now, what really struck me, is, how many other dreams like that with people, things, words, details, did i have last night that i dont remember? i only remember this one because i woke suddenly in the middle of it. how many other rich complete situations have happened to me this year that part of me knows about and part of me does not remember?
why does the unconscious seem to have more going on than the conscious? why does the unconscious seem to have so much to do? why does the conscious seem to be so in the dark? unknowing. I have forgotten more than i know.
the scientists belittle and dismiss, oh that is just a brain rewind, a chemical sputter, a hormonal balancing. campbell says myths are an attempt to tell the unconscious story to the conscious. there is a pattern with meditation. deep concentration leads to dreamlike images, if the conscious mind stirs, they are chased away. meditation is a search for unconscious light. behind every unconscious fluid image, is light. when it bursts through, that is the only goal of meditation.
perhaps the great novelists learn how to let their unconscious weave a story, without letting their conscious self step in and police the action. the conscious can handle the grammar. characters and events which ring true and have their own existence have to come from a richer source.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
pre-disposition
There must be some appreciation of magic.
Can you imagine a world without life, a barren world inhabited only by mineral? In a billion years, in 5 billion years, if there were not some pre-disposition to life, there would not be the slightest stirring. No molecules would assemble themselves into a conscious being.
Can you imagine a world without life, a barren world inhabited only by mineral? In a billion years, in 5 billion years, if there were not some pre-disposition to life, there would not be the slightest stirring. No molecules would assemble themselves into a conscious being.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
the man who awoke
there is not a christian bone in my body.
no one took down the words of jesus in his native aramaic.all the texts are in greek. you would think that if someone thought this was god, they would record his actual words. contrast that with the buddhist tradition, where a mechanism was set in place immediately to record the actual words. buddha says he awoke, but he was otherwise an ordinary man. mark, the earliest gospel, was not set down til 40 years after the passion. the last several verses of mark were added even later. it has the fewest miracles, the least dogmatic. what follows is 300 years of increasing miracles and increasingly complex religious doctrine. jesus the man becomes god. with the nicene creed in 325, the foundation for the inquisition and religous wars was laid, from oppressed to oppressor. the monks of the nag hammadi library responded to the edict to burn all non-approved texts by burying an urn containing copies of their non-canonical texts. they were found 1600 years later. one of them, the gospel of thomas, is thought to be contemporary with the gospel of john, early in the second century. it contains the sayings of jesus, and only the sayings of jesus, no miracles, no crucificion, no resurrection. the gospel of john goes out of its way to discredit thomas, it contains the doubting thomas stories, thomas the most dense of the apostles. he wasnt even there when jesus returned from the dead to give them their charge. only he and judas were missing. none of the other gospels have anything bad to say about thomas. what we have here is a religious rivalry, and finally we have the text to compare the actual disagreement. thomas, hebrew for the twin, has jesus say that the light is within and it is available to all now. jesus says what i do, you can also do, hence the twin theme. some scholars think these sayings may be closer to the actual words than the other gospels. they contain much the same material as the traditional gospels, but are less adorned, less edited. they may be the closest thing in writing to the words of the man so many call their savior, suppressed by their own church.
"Love your friends like your own soul, protect them like the pupil of your eye."
i could have been a thomasine christian, jesus the man who awoke.
no one took down the words of jesus in his native aramaic.all the texts are in greek. you would think that if someone thought this was god, they would record his actual words. contrast that with the buddhist tradition, where a mechanism was set in place immediately to record the actual words. buddha says he awoke, but he was otherwise an ordinary man. mark, the earliest gospel, was not set down til 40 years after the passion. the last several verses of mark were added even later. it has the fewest miracles, the least dogmatic. what follows is 300 years of increasing miracles and increasingly complex religious doctrine. jesus the man becomes god. with the nicene creed in 325, the foundation for the inquisition and religous wars was laid, from oppressed to oppressor. the monks of the nag hammadi library responded to the edict to burn all non-approved texts by burying an urn containing copies of their non-canonical texts. they were found 1600 years later. one of them, the gospel of thomas, is thought to be contemporary with the gospel of john, early in the second century. it contains the sayings of jesus, and only the sayings of jesus, no miracles, no crucificion, no resurrection. the gospel of john goes out of its way to discredit thomas, it contains the doubting thomas stories, thomas the most dense of the apostles. he wasnt even there when jesus returned from the dead to give them their charge. only he and judas were missing. none of the other gospels have anything bad to say about thomas. what we have here is a religious rivalry, and finally we have the text to compare the actual disagreement. thomas, hebrew for the twin, has jesus say that the light is within and it is available to all now. jesus says what i do, you can also do, hence the twin theme. some scholars think these sayings may be closer to the actual words than the other gospels. they contain much the same material as the traditional gospels, but are less adorned, less edited. they may be the closest thing in writing to the words of the man so many call their savior, suppressed by their own church.
"Love your friends like your own soul, protect them like the pupil of your eye."
i could have been a thomasine christian, jesus the man who awoke.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
the religion of science
part1
the imagination, the big bang, the appearance and expansion of life
or
the religion of science
consider the big bang. everything that cannot be seen, cannot be recreated, is not proven, is a theory. consider the big bang from the physicist point of view, and assume they are essentially correct. at one point, all the matter that is now spread was condensed to maximum concentration in one spot. this changed time from the way we know it now. it also changed space. space and time were somehow warped around this super concentration. for some reason, perhaps they know why, this ball exploded and flung its atoms out, and time and space became as we know it.
what preceded the concentration of matter? did it condense from a previous universe? do universes expand, then contract, collapse, boil for a while in a ball, then expand again? where did the atoms come from in the first place? where did the laws of physics come from?
at some point as these bits of rock were hurtling through space, presumably away from each other, life emerged. on this the scientists and the christians virtually agree. it arose from a single seminal event. all species come from the first mutation. all humans come from adam.
whether it was a part of life at the beginning or not, at some point, mind arose. the power that life has to imagine things it cannot see, like the big bang. its important for people to reconcile their imagination with what they believe to be the truth. they want to see the big bang as it really was. they want to see the beginning of life in their mind as it really was. no one wants a theory which comforts them but which is ultimately not true. we believe what we see, what is true is what would have been seen.
in many ways, the emergence of life is like the big bang. from a seminal event, it is still expanding. there is a drive in all of us to see and hear things beyond the present. to see the future, to know the past. the power of mind is the imagination to see things which cannot be physically seen, in the past or future. to see them truly as they were or will be.
by seeing it, people want to be present at the big bang, the beginning of life. they dont want it to take place without them. they want to be a part of it. they want to help cause it, to be a part of the genius which created it. to be a part of the creator. to be a partner in creation.
the expansion of matter, life and mind
if there is a meaning to life, as in, what is the meaning of life, it must also be the meaning of matter. we think when matter expanded, it changed the qualities of time and space. when mind expands, it can see and understand things which cannot be physically seen. where will that lead?
underlying all this of course, is my belief that the qualities of mind preceded the big bang, that they are not created from matter, that matter is not sufficient as the base material of intelligence. it proceeds from itself. mind creates matter. matter is not able to create mind.
i cannot ignore my experience. my experience seems to tell me that i am a being of mind, more than of matter. my matter can be dissolved, but it seems to exist to give my mind a playground. mind is playing in this world.
how many in their 80+ years here have looked back at the beginning and imagined they could see the creator and know what took place, how it happened, why, where they stood. we use their theories, their speculations, as our own base. how much would we know without the others who like us are looking through time and space? how much of what we are is because of others just like us, looking and wondering.
what does that phrase mean, they share a common vision?
what is the vision of what we are expanding to?
the imagination, the big bang, the appearance and expansion of life
or
the religion of science
consider the big bang. everything that cannot be seen, cannot be recreated, is not proven, is a theory. consider the big bang from the physicist point of view, and assume they are essentially correct. at one point, all the matter that is now spread was condensed to maximum concentration in one spot. this changed time from the way we know it now. it also changed space. space and time were somehow warped around this super concentration. for some reason, perhaps they know why, this ball exploded and flung its atoms out, and time and space became as we know it.
what preceded the concentration of matter? did it condense from a previous universe? do universes expand, then contract, collapse, boil for a while in a ball, then expand again? where did the atoms come from in the first place? where did the laws of physics come from?
at some point as these bits of rock were hurtling through space, presumably away from each other, life emerged. on this the scientists and the christians virtually agree. it arose from a single seminal event. all species come from the first mutation. all humans come from adam.
whether it was a part of life at the beginning or not, at some point, mind arose. the power that life has to imagine things it cannot see, like the big bang. its important for people to reconcile their imagination with what they believe to be the truth. they want to see the big bang as it really was. they want to see the beginning of life in their mind as it really was. no one wants a theory which comforts them but which is ultimately not true. we believe what we see, what is true is what would have been seen.
in many ways, the emergence of life is like the big bang. from a seminal event, it is still expanding. there is a drive in all of us to see and hear things beyond the present. to see the future, to know the past. the power of mind is the imagination to see things which cannot be physically seen, in the past or future. to see them truly as they were or will be.
by seeing it, people want to be present at the big bang, the beginning of life. they dont want it to take place without them. they want to be a part of it. they want to help cause it, to be a part of the genius which created it. to be a part of the creator. to be a partner in creation.
the expansion of matter, life and mind
if there is a meaning to life, as in, what is the meaning of life, it must also be the meaning of matter. we think when matter expanded, it changed the qualities of time and space. when mind expands, it can see and understand things which cannot be physically seen. where will that lead?
underlying all this of course, is my belief that the qualities of mind preceded the big bang, that they are not created from matter, that matter is not sufficient as the base material of intelligence. it proceeds from itself. mind creates matter. matter is not able to create mind.
i cannot ignore my experience. my experience seems to tell me that i am a being of mind, more than of matter. my matter can be dissolved, but it seems to exist to give my mind a playground. mind is playing in this world.
how many in their 80+ years here have looked back at the beginning and imagined they could see the creator and know what took place, how it happened, why, where they stood. we use their theories, their speculations, as our own base. how much would we know without the others who like us are looking through time and space? how much of what we are is because of others just like us, looking and wondering.
what does that phrase mean, they share a common vision?
what is the vision of what we are expanding to?
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Is a bear catholic?
does the pope shit in the woods?
a linguistic analysis for posterity
my generation - the self indulgent baby boom, the generation which says, til death do us part, but especially right now, or at least til this new feeling goes away - has two stock replies to signify yes to an all too obvious question, what a later generation conveniently shortened to, "duh". They are - Is the pope catholic? and Does a bear shit in the woods? Both of these responses lie next to each other in the brain, being interchangeable. On an old phonograph playing a worn out record, sometimes the needle would jump to the next track, skipping lines. That is the origin of the saying, does the pope shit in the woods. Its a jumping of tracks in an aging baby boomers mind, using rote responses to call back the crazy years. However, Are Bears Catholic? is a legitimate theological question, because it is possible they were blessed by the same Irish priest who said to the Maya, domini, domini, domini, youre all catholic now.
a linguistic analysis for posterity
my generation - the self indulgent baby boom, the generation which says, til death do us part, but especially right now, or at least til this new feeling goes away - has two stock replies to signify yes to an all too obvious question, what a later generation conveniently shortened to, "duh". They are - Is the pope catholic? and Does a bear shit in the woods? Both of these responses lie next to each other in the brain, being interchangeable. On an old phonograph playing a worn out record, sometimes the needle would jump to the next track, skipping lines. That is the origin of the saying, does the pope shit in the woods. Its a jumping of tracks in an aging baby boomers mind, using rote responses to call back the crazy years. However, Are Bears Catholic? is a legitimate theological question, because it is possible they were blessed by the same Irish priest who said to the Maya, domini, domini, domini, youre all catholic now.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
foolish
the inner side has always seemed important to me. if you can become neutral for one second, silence the noise, the wants, needs, fears, you can feel the ecstasy at the core of your being. that is what fuels the desire to live, to experience life. religion is manmade. that doesnt make me an atheist. only god can make a sunset. you dont need fairy tales to believe in god. just consider the harmony of life, from the subatomic to the stars, and how similar it is to a work of art, everything in its place. there hasnt been enough time pass to produce a human being by random chance. the same evident design could possibly bring two people together who need each other. its hard to ignore the pull to family and kinship. the odds are not good, but something with even greater odds, life itself, and sunsets, oceans, trees, babies, has happened. so perhaps the hidden hand of divine accidents still exists, and just hoping for somebody you love to talk to is not so foolish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)