Time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, another dimension added to height, depth and width to give meaning to the physical principle that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
Time has no meaning in and of itself. It must be part of the physical universe in order to exist. That is why scientists (Einstein, Hawkins) call it the "Space-Time Continuum" and why they argue that before the Big Bang time was not there.
The modern scientific understanding of time is surprisingly very close to the mystical idea that time is in fact just an illusion.
Time as illusion is a common theme in Buddhist thought (Suzuki) and several thinkers from different time periods and cultural backgrounds (e.g. Parmenides, Zeno, Eckhart, Maharaj, Ibn ‘Arabi) have also reported similar ideas, arguing that realized spiritual masters do not perceive the passing of time from present moment to present moment because just an artefact of our psychology.
If you drop out of the wheel, all change disappears. Then you are here and always here. That state is the real search of all true seekers: how to get out of this wheel of birth and death, how to enter into life eternal where no birth ever happens and no death either, where nothing begins and nothing ends, where all simply is -- how to enter into this God. Just the other day, I was saying God means 'that which is'... how to enter into that which is? These are the sutras by which to enter into that which is. (Osho)
Therefore, time does not refer to a container through which events move, nor to an entity that flows, but rather part of a fundamental intellectual structure, together with space and number, within which humans sequence and compare events.
Going back to science, special and general theories of relativity bring significant substance to support the claims that time is not an absolute truth.
Special theory of relativity shows how time changes with motion. This theory says that space and time are really aspects of the same thing: spacetime. When you move through spacetime at a speed, relative to other objects, close to the speed of light (i.e. 300,000 kilometers per second), time goes slower for you than for the objects/people you left behind. You won't notice this effect until you return to those stationary things.
Because time is relative to the speed one is travelling at, there can never be a clock at the centre of the universe to which everyone can set their watches. Your entire life is the blink of an eye to an alien travelling close to the speed of light.
General relativity theory – the current description of gravitation in modern physics – unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, describing gravity as a geometric property of spacetime. According to it, gravity warps time: the greater the gravity the more rapidly time passes.
There is a lot about time that we still do not know nor understand, and possibly never will. To me, the interesting aspect of the all discussion is that once more, science and philosophy (here intended more as spirituality) are converging even though they stated from different premises, used different approaches, and evolved over different periods.
10 June, 2010
30 May, 2010
Magna Carta Mundi
Is 'carpe diem' the way to live? I have always thought so, at least at an individual level. Yet, seizing the day can often imply selfishness, disrespect for the laws of society and definitely neglecting the future.
It can be reasonably argued that this kind of behavior, although not alone, has contributed to plunge humanity into its current state: people running around like headless chickens in a world that is becoming less sustainable every day.
Mmmhh... so although we should continue to enjoy the moment rather than living a life of continuous planning for a future in which we might not be a part of, we must also carry out our lives in a way that fits with a master plan aimed at constantly improving the human race. An evolution that unlike the Darwinian concept, it involves a growth in consciousness. An advancement towards perfection that reminds us of Nietzsche's superman.
The problem is that such a master plan currently does not exist! The UN is virtually a joke and so are the IMF, the WTO, and so forth. There is no coordination in the way nations and therefore humanity should evolve. We need the UN, or a replacing entity, to take a stance, to be recognized and respected for what it represents, and to be granted the powers of enforcing a responsive as well as proactive plan aimed at resolving the many crises we face. I honestly think that, unless major changes occur in this direction, we will either end up at the mercy of some terrorist group seeking to wipe out humanity and restart on a blank sheet, or even worse consuming everything we got while destroying our planet.
The master plan should concentrate on the following:
- have both short- and long-term goals with proper milestones and monitoring systems in place. Best practices for project management have evolved significantly over the years and they can facilitate the smooth running of highly complex projects when coupled with capable people, proper resources, clear responsibilities, and a good organizational structure. We need a way of applying the same principles on a world scale, while simultaneously eradicating corruption.
- be "flexible" because while the original plan should be based on our current knowledge, it should also be open to a continuous flow of new information. In fact knowledge is not to be mistaken as a constant value, hence the master plan should be an alive document that adapts over time.
- enforce drastic measures at the start of the implementation phase because time for change is running out. We are still moving in the wrong direction, regardless of all the hype of the past few decades surrounding global warming, wildlife extinction, pollution, drugs, crime, etc. Everyone talks about these things, but not nearly enough gets done and the individual alone can do too little without the support (and pressure) of appropriate laws and organisms in place. The need for radical changes is necessary to reverse the trend as well as to create a good basis from where to move forward. I believe the vast majority of existing democratic systems are not properly structured to drive such a change because (a) they leave too much space for opposing views to raise (and these are always present regardless of how important the issue under consideration is) and (b) because they entail extremely long burocratic practices.
28 April, 2010
Intertwining of Philosophy, Religion and Science
While this post starts off by condemning organized religion, its real aim is to assess the role and responsibility of science in today's society. After giving a brief historical overview of how modern science has gradually evolved out of philosophy and it has struggled for centuries to overcome the restraining power of religion, I raise the case that science instead of persevering on a pointless fight against religion should concentrate its efforts on knowledge dissemination. In addition I contend, although not as vocally as some epistemological anarchists, that modern science is becoming set to exercise an authoritarian and unjustified dominance in society, which risks preventing the growth of knowledge rather than promoting it.
Throughout the centuries the purpose of religion has always been to answer some of the same fundamental questions that are also shared by metaphysics (an important branch of philosophy). These include: "what is the nature of reality?" "what is man's place in the universe?" “what is the origin of the Universe?” “what is its first cause?” “is its existence necessary?” “what are the ultimate material components of the Universe?” “what is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe?” “does the cosmos have a purpose?” However, because existence of god can only be demonstrated by faith all great philosophers (including those who believed in a first cause of the existence of the universe and have called that "god") have been quick to also point out their uncertainty. Doubt that god(s) exist is the basis of agnosticism, hence philosophers can either be agnostics or atheists, but rarely religious. Of course some exceptions exist (e.g. Kierkegaard and Christian Existentialism).
Until 400AC religion and philosophy had managed to coexist without greatly limiting one another. This occurred regardless of religion having repeatedly been used for political reasons given its power of influencing the minds of the masses by instilling fears of death, after death, and the unknown.
However, peaceful coexistence between faith (i.e. religion) and reason (i.e. philosophy) ended with the Middle Ages when the evolution of human thinking literally froze for a thousand years. Ignorance and superstition ruled and only around 1,100AC a distinction started to emerge between religious subjects (sapientia of the monks) and reason (scientia of the intellectuals) with some philosophers promoting early secular ideas by stating that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.
But in 1,200AC the Inquisition was still carrying out witch hunting, and the Church was selling absolutions to acquire wealth. It was only in the 1300s that Renaissance Humanism started a cultural and educational reform in Italy with advancements in the arts and science that strongly responded to the challenge of Medieval scholastic education.
Starting around 1,500AC, European civilization began to undergo changes leading to the scientific and industrial revolutions. As a result Europe radically transformed itself and developed an overwhelming impact on other continents and other cultures. With the likes of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton a new optimism about the benefits of learning had arisen among intellectual elite, in conflict with the old and common belief that the world was a mystery never to be fathomed by humanity. This was the Age of Reason which preceded Enlightenment, a period where the Church was often tagged as the number one public enemy (Verri, Beccaria, Genovesi, Voltaire, Diderot, Locke, Jefferson, etc.). Materialists such as La Mettrie, Claude-Adrien Helvetius, and Paul-Henry D’Holbach stressed that man was not a creature of God but only the result, quite imperfect, of a chemical and mechanistic process occurred millions of years before. No soul or after life existed according to them.
The turmoil of ideas that Europe had experienced in previous centuries continued into the 1800s, with advancements in the sciences, medicine and technology. A few Europeans continued the attempt at putting it all together under the ‘philosophy’ umbrella term, but natural philosophy had gradually begun to separate from moral philosophy.
Before the development of modern science, scientific questions had in fact been addressed by that portion of metaphysics that fell under natural philosophy. The word ‘science’ itself already existed and meant knowledge of epistemological origin, but was the widespread use of the expression “scientific method” that made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from the rest of philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.
My feeling is that since the proclamation of modern science, many metaphysical disciplines (cosmology, ontology, philosophy of the mind) have been harshly classified as pseudoscience…or worse religion!
It is true that metaphysics has been contended in history as vague; similarly to religious views, it has often been defined as not provable (Hume, Kant, and Popper) as neither empirical observations nor logical arguments could falsify metaphysical statements to show them to be true or false. So, does this mean we should stop seeking reasonable metaphysical answers because not empirically testable? I think metaphysics is too important to be discarded as it investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the universe: ultimate questions without which we’ll never be able to develop a theory of everything. Furthermore, in some cases subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus becoming part of proper physics (e.g. theory of relativity).
I reckon it is interesting to note how Einstein (1879-1955), while making it clear that he did not believe in a personal God, also argued that a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other there are strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Metaphysics represents those relationships and dependencies.
While I strongly argue against any sort of organized religion and hope they will all die out eventually as more and more people acquire knowledge and lose interest in the absurd teachings of fundamentalist groups, I also fear the possible implications of a growing number of 'scientists' quickly branding as meaningless or false concepts and ideas that deal with spirituality and that cannot be fully grasped by science or tested using standard methods. My fear is that such a trend could eventually lead to a new form of Inquisition.
The battle of science against religion has already been fought and won 300 or so years ago. Of course organized religion still carries its risks and negative features, but so does science. Is fear of a terrorist attack by religious fanatics any greater than the potential consequences of a malfunction in a nuclear plant, misuse of genetics and viruses, advanced weaponry, etc? Even in terms of ideologies, are the religious implications of moderation, authority, emancipation, and punishment much worse than what we got from capitalism, democracy, materialism, individualism, and other social outlooks that in one way or another have derived from the process of modernization set in motion by Europeans during the scientific and industrial revolutions?As Hitchens states, eradication of religion is not a plausible option because we are still evolving creatures who haven't yet got past the fear of death. Than what should we do? My suggestion is a twofold approach that implies a wide dissemination of scientific knowledge as well as the assimilation of metaphysical and epistemological questions by the domain of science.
First of all, it is essential to educate the masses with the dissemination of scientific knowledge in forms that are simple and understandable by everyone. Once an individual finishes high school there is a real difficulty to keep up with science - even when there is a genuine interest - given the fast pace of new discoveries, the complexity of some fields, and the fragmentation of knowledge across a myriad of disciplines. My feeling is that regular updates at least in some fields should be readily available to anyone. The selection below is based on the belief that discoveries in each one of the areas listed has the potential of carrying substantial metaphysical and/or epistemological implications for the basic questions of philosophy (and therefore also religion).
All reasonable pseudoscientific beliefs, whether they currently lack strong supportive evidence or purely rely on unmeasurable propositions, should be studied in unison by philosophers of science and scientists in well respected institutions, rather than letting self-proclaimed wizards and prophets discredit the disciplines and once again - as organized religions have done in the past - profit by influencing the minds of simple people. Astrology, mysticism, and occultism are here to stay and, unfortunately or not, are in the process of replacing established religious beliefs. The questions they seek to answer remain the same metaphysical questions of the past concerning man, the universe, existence, etc.
I believe there should be a system in place to treat justifiable pseudoscience in a consistent way. The search for extraterrestrial life, parapsychology (telekinesis, telepathy, biological healing, life after death), vitalism, and perhaps a few other disciplines should continuously be monitored and linked wherever possible to areas of natural science. On the other hand, search for the BigFoot, vampirism, and metamorphosis can probably wait...
By saying that natural sciences need to remain connected with metaphysical and epistemological questions of philosophy I am not suggesting anything new. In fact numerous subfields of philosophy of science already exist and the main ones include: philosophy of biology, philosophy of chemistry, philosophy of physics, philosophy of psychology, and neurophilosophy. Although most practitioners are philosophers, several prominent scientists have contributed to the fields and still do. Other scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited. Perhaps so, but it is important for them to manifest their support nevertheless, so that humanity can see a sole and united front that leads the search for new knowledge and eventually will derive a theory of everything.
Throughout the centuries the purpose of religion has always been to answer some of the same fundamental questions that are also shared by metaphysics (an important branch of philosophy). These include: "what is the nature of reality?" "what is man's place in the universe?" “what is the origin of the Universe?” “what is its first cause?” “is its existence necessary?” “what are the ultimate material components of the Universe?” “what is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe?” “does the cosmos have a purpose?” However, because existence of god can only be demonstrated by faith all great philosophers (including those who believed in a first cause of the existence of the universe and have called that "god") have been quick to also point out their uncertainty. Doubt that god(s) exist is the basis of agnosticism, hence philosophers can either be agnostics or atheists, but rarely religious. Of course some exceptions exist (e.g. Kierkegaard and Christian Existentialism).
Until 400AC religion and philosophy had managed to coexist without greatly limiting one another. This occurred regardless of religion having repeatedly been used for political reasons given its power of influencing the minds of the masses by instilling fears of death, after death, and the unknown.
However, peaceful coexistence between faith (i.e. religion) and reason (i.e. philosophy) ended with the Middle Ages when the evolution of human thinking literally froze for a thousand years. Ignorance and superstition ruled and only around 1,100AC a distinction started to emerge between religious subjects (sapientia of the monks) and reason (scientia of the intellectuals) with some philosophers promoting early secular ideas by stating that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.
But in 1,200AC the Inquisition was still carrying out witch hunting, and the Church was selling absolutions to acquire wealth. It was only in the 1300s that Renaissance Humanism started a cultural and educational reform in Italy with advancements in the arts and science that strongly responded to the challenge of Medieval scholastic education.
Starting around 1,500AC, European civilization began to undergo changes leading to the scientific and industrial revolutions. As a result Europe radically transformed itself and developed an overwhelming impact on other continents and other cultures. With the likes of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton a new optimism about the benefits of learning had arisen among intellectual elite, in conflict with the old and common belief that the world was a mystery never to be fathomed by humanity. This was the Age of Reason which preceded Enlightenment, a period where the Church was often tagged as the number one public enemy (Verri, Beccaria, Genovesi, Voltaire, Diderot, Locke, Jefferson, etc.). Materialists such as La Mettrie, Claude-Adrien Helvetius, and Paul-Henry D’Holbach stressed that man was not a creature of God but only the result, quite imperfect, of a chemical and mechanistic process occurred millions of years before. No soul or after life existed according to them.
The turmoil of ideas that Europe had experienced in previous centuries continued into the 1800s, with advancements in the sciences, medicine and technology. A few Europeans continued the attempt at putting it all together under the ‘philosophy’ umbrella term, but natural philosophy had gradually begun to separate from moral philosophy.
Before the development of modern science, scientific questions had in fact been addressed by that portion of metaphysics that fell under natural philosophy. The word ‘science’ itself already existed and meant knowledge of epistemological origin, but was the widespread use of the expression “scientific method” that made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from the rest of philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.
My feeling is that since the proclamation of modern science, many metaphysical disciplines (cosmology, ontology, philosophy of the mind) have been harshly classified as pseudoscience…or worse religion!
It is true that metaphysics has been contended in history as vague; similarly to religious views, it has often been defined as not provable (Hume, Kant, and Popper) as neither empirical observations nor logical arguments could falsify metaphysical statements to show them to be true or false. So, does this mean we should stop seeking reasonable metaphysical answers because not empirically testable? I think metaphysics is too important to be discarded as it investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the universe: ultimate questions without which we’ll never be able to develop a theory of everything. Furthermore, in some cases subjects of metaphysical scholarship have been found to be entirely physical and natural, thus becoming part of proper physics (e.g. theory of relativity).
I reckon it is interesting to note how Einstein (1879-1955), while making it clear that he did not believe in a personal God, also argued that a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other there are strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Metaphysics represents those relationships and dependencies.
While I strongly argue against any sort of organized religion and hope they will all die out eventually as more and more people acquire knowledge and lose interest in the absurd teachings of fundamentalist groups, I also fear the possible implications of a growing number of 'scientists' quickly branding as meaningless or false concepts and ideas that deal with spirituality and that cannot be fully grasped by science or tested using standard methods. My fear is that such a trend could eventually lead to a new form of Inquisition.
The battle of science against religion has already been fought and won 300 or so years ago. Of course organized religion still carries its risks and negative features, but so does science. Is fear of a terrorist attack by religious fanatics any greater than the potential consequences of a malfunction in a nuclear plant, misuse of genetics and viruses, advanced weaponry, etc? Even in terms of ideologies, are the religious implications of moderation, authority, emancipation, and punishment much worse than what we got from capitalism, democracy, materialism, individualism, and other social outlooks that in one way or another have derived from the process of modernization set in motion by Europeans during the scientific and industrial revolutions?As Hitchens states, eradication of religion is not a plausible option because we are still evolving creatures who haven't yet got past the fear of death. Than what should we do? My suggestion is a twofold approach that implies a wide dissemination of scientific knowledge as well as the assimilation of metaphysical and epistemological questions by the domain of science.
First of all, it is essential to educate the masses with the dissemination of scientific knowledge in forms that are simple and understandable by everyone. Once an individual finishes high school there is a real difficulty to keep up with science - even when there is a genuine interest - given the fast pace of new discoveries, the complexity of some fields, and the fragmentation of knowledge across a myriad of disciplines. My feeling is that regular updates at least in some fields should be readily available to anyone. The selection below is based on the belief that discoveries in each one of the areas listed has the potential of carrying substantial metaphysical and/or epistemological implications for the basic questions of philosophy (and therefore also religion).
- physics (quantum mechanics, theoretical physics, nanotechnology, space physics, astrophysics, physical chemistry, biophysics, energy, nanotechnology)
- chemistry (biochemistry, geochemistry, astrochemistry)
- astronomy (astrobiology)
- biology (genetics, evolution, neuroscience)
- psychology
- sociology
All reasonable pseudoscientific beliefs, whether they currently lack strong supportive evidence or purely rely on unmeasurable propositions, should be studied in unison by philosophers of science and scientists in well respected institutions, rather than letting self-proclaimed wizards and prophets discredit the disciplines and once again - as organized religions have done in the past - profit by influencing the minds of simple people. Astrology, mysticism, and occultism are here to stay and, unfortunately or not, are in the process of replacing established religious beliefs. The questions they seek to answer remain the same metaphysical questions of the past concerning man, the universe, existence, etc.
I believe there should be a system in place to treat justifiable pseudoscience in a consistent way. The search for extraterrestrial life, parapsychology (telekinesis, telepathy, biological healing, life after death), vitalism, and perhaps a few other disciplines should continuously be monitored and linked wherever possible to areas of natural science. On the other hand, search for the BigFoot, vampirism, and metamorphosis can probably wait...
By saying that natural sciences need to remain connected with metaphysical and epistemological questions of philosophy I am not suggesting anything new. In fact numerous subfields of philosophy of science already exist and the main ones include: philosophy of biology, philosophy of chemistry, philosophy of physics, philosophy of psychology, and neurophilosophy. Although most practitioners are philosophers, several prominent scientists have contributed to the fields and still do. Other scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited. Perhaps so, but it is important for them to manifest their support nevertheless, so that humanity can see a sole and united front that leads the search for new knowledge and eventually will derive a theory of everything.
16 April, 2010
A Response to my Previous Post (Is Reincarnation a Possibility?)
I thank my brother, Andrea, for providing a detailed feedback to my previous post “Is Reincarnation a Possibility?” and giving me the chance to expand some arguments. His points are well substantiated and I am sure some readers will feel closer to his views than mine (which I don't see too far apart). That’s absolutely fine as I am not claiming to know anything for certain – my views change continuously as I explore deeper my inner self – and because I am not here to preach but to initiate discussions over issues that I feel are important regardless of how diverse the views of my readers might be. The aim of this Blog is not to seek approval but rather to exchange ideas in a way that eventually will lead us to improve the formulation of our own individual theories, which in the end will have to satisfy only us!
ANDREA: The first problem I find is the insinuation that reincarnation and scientific observation could somehow coexist, or even benefit mutually. This is simply not true. Despite vague ad-hoc examples, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that reincarnation exists beyond what most biologists and scientists would describe as a continuation of the energy cycle. There has never been a conclusive study that was able to elevate reincarnation from its current condition of pseudoscience, a place it shares with alchemy, astrology, and phrenology among others.
REPLY: Some could argue that the absence of valid scientific evidence supporting the philosophical idea of reincarnation is due to the matter not being a subject of modern science. Nevertheless, being reincarnation an experience, it is absolutely scientific and perhaps psychotherapy will come up one day with a convincing method by which anyone will remember past lives... Until then we can only rely on the experiences of great minds of the past and present such as Pythagoras, Gautama, Laozi, Kanada, Plotinus, Plato, Origen, Mahavira, Yogaswami, Yogananda, Adi Granth, and many more…
ANDREA: On the other hand, there are innumerable studies showing that in no instance would you find a continuation of the cognitive processes beyond the natural death of the organism that produces them. In other words, the death of the brain signifies the death of the mental processes it produces.
Many "spiritual" people lack an understanding of even the basic tenets of world religions and philosophies (two very different subjects pertaining to more or less the same basic questions), and this has generated great confusion. Most people who seek consolation in Buddhism because it grants them a certain continuation to the very natural tendency of all living things to die, would be quite disappointed to learn that the Buddha categorically denied any possibility of the permanence of the soul, the mind, or the self.
REPLY: Spirituality is not measured by how educated we are about religions, philosophies, or science. Actually it is arguably the opposite as the more we rationally try to understand existence, the less we free our mind to experience it. While many seek comfort in existing systems of belief (misinterpreting them or otherwise), many others simply follow their feelings and sometimes these result to be closely aligned with some basic tenets of religions or philosophies.
ANDREA: Siddharta Gautama was unequivocal: when you die, you die. In Buddhism, death and life are often compared to two candles. We can be a dying candle lighting another, thus creating the condition for the light to perpetuate, but we cannot become the other candle.
REPLY: Right in saying that Buddhists don't believe in the soul intended as a spirit or ghost, but they (including Gautama) do believe in rebirth.
Also appropriate is the metaphor of the two candles to illustrate the lack of a constant self, although I don’t think it clearly depicts the continuum of the life cycle in Buddhism, a conception which is by the way not too far-off from the continuation of the energy cycle you acknowledged previously. Instead of the two candles I prefer Osho’s view of a single candle whose flame constantly changes never being the same twice but always connected. The flame changes incessantly disappearing into smoke with a new flame replacing it each moment. The first flame of when you light the candle and the last of when you put it out are different but are part of one chain. For lack of better words, I have referred to what keeps each flame connected as the soul, but perhaps we need a different term to describe that continuum.
ANDREA: What made the Buddha such a pivotal figure in the history of mankind was that he was one of the very first scientific minds of the East. He tried opulence and asceticism, and readily rejected them when he found them not to work. He had been introduced to the concept of eternal soul of Hinduism (and the consolation it brings), but decided to follow his observations instead. On is deathbed, he urged his disciples to always question everything, and to submit every idea to the test.
REPLY: I believe the test he was referring to was not a lab experiment but the test of ‘experience’. Wealth and asceticism did not work for him as paths to increase his consciousness but eventually he found his way through moderation and meditation.
ANDREA: Let us not forget that this happened more than 2500 years ago. Clinging on to ancient theories when our knowledge has improved so vastly is a nonsensical endeavour, and one that would make the Buddha himself ashamed. He made the best of what he had. If only he had known about galaxies, atoms, cells, and energy! How would he test his ideas today?
One of the main flaws with the whole "we can't quite explain this yet, so… god (or fairies, or spirits) did it!" is that it does nothing to improve our odds of understanding a concept. How would an unobservable, unmeasurable, and even indescribable entity ever solve any problem? Certainly science does not have an answer for everything, but that is no excuse to put a deity in there.
REPLY: I also did not mention God anywhere in the post and I totally agree that deities should not be used to cover holes in our understanding of the universe and its laws.
ANDREA: It is true that we don't exactly know how the first prokaryotes came into being, but we have sound, workable theories. Some of these theories will undoubtedly prove to be false, and others will take us one step closer to an answer. But we certainly shouldn't give up so easily, and believe that a "soul" would be a grand explanation (or even a remotely plausible hypothesis) of how inanimate matter could have turned into life. Give that idea a chance, and you'll have to give it to any other idea anybody will ever come up with!
The fact that you can't disprove something does not make it real. You can't disprove an invisible unicorn lives at the bottom of the sea, but you wouldn't waste a minute of your life pondering that possibility. "But many people have had an experience of reincarnation," you may say. Well of course, what could a unicorn at the bottom of the sea do for you? Clearly, believing that your dead loved ones still hang around is slightly more powerful (but raises all kinds of embarrassing questions). I submit to you that most people who were born in Baghdad have had visions of Mohammed, and that Christians love nothing more than being visited by the Lady of Fatima, but not by their ancestors reincarnated in a child.
REPLY:
As a general consideration I’d say it is fine to generate ideas to explain events that science cannot yet explicate; especially when you seem to agree that “certainly science does not have an answer for everything”. The big problem is when people blindly keep following religious views that have been thoroughly disconfirmed.
My suggestion that a soul could explain how inanimate matter has turned into life is in fact an idea just as the invisible unicorn. However, considering that ‘something’ (called soul or anything else) is carried forward from a previous death to guarantee the continuum of the life cycle is perhaps not as absurd especially when we consider that “most biologists and scientists already recognise a continuation of the energy cycle”.
I do not doubt the importance of nurturing our scientific endeavours which perhaps one day will have enough substance to disprove the main tenets (including rebirth) of great philosophies that have lasted the test of time. But so far, science is still throwing wild guesses to fabricate a possible TOE (Theory Of Everything) that is not much less absurd than the invisible unicorn idea.
ANDREA: Had we applied this method of explaining the unknown with whimsical conjectures instead of observable evidence, we would still be taking hearts out of sacrificial victims every morning to propitiate the Sun's rising. We would still believe in burning bushes and great floods. Excuse me, but I find the immensity of space, the swirling of galaxies, the wonderful trees and animals, and the fact that we are made of stardust much more appealing.
REPLY: It is in fact a very appealing portrayal and perhaps not far from the truth. But the immensity of space, the swirling of galaxies, the wonderful trees and animals, and the fact that we are made of stardust can all very well coexist with rebirth.
ANDREA: And finally, on the subject of life on other planets. The possibility of life on other planets even within our own solar system is being recalculated almost daily. Observations from Titan, Europa, Mars, and other corners of our small cosmic backyard suggest that life could indeed be everywhere.
Why have no green man ever contacted us? First of all, we must understand the difference between life and intelligent life. Intelligent life might be much rarer than micro-organisms. There has been life on this planet for more than 3 billion years, and yet we have been able to send signals out into space only for the last 60. This is a tiny, tiny window of opportunity that might not necessarily coincide with the same window of opportunity of other civilizations, if indeed they exist.
Secondly, the distances are so great that if the green men's civilization did happen to coincide with ours, and managed to send a signal just in the right direction, and in a form we could identify as artificial (and that's a lot of ifs), it might take tens of thousands of years for that signal to get to us.
REPLY: It is precisely because of the belief that life can exist on many planets, combined with the young age of our solar system (4.58 billion years) – when compared to some far away corners of the universe (13.7 billion years) – that we should by now have been contacted/invaded by green men. Assuming that several other planets in the universe have followed an evolutionary pathway similar to ours, there should be a few civilizations out there with technological advancements several billion years ahead of ours. I think it is biased to place extremely complex capabilities to communicate at the same level as signals we sent out 60 years ago!
Conversely, if we start saying how special our solar system is, how special Earth is, how special life is, and how special intelligent life is, then it is a natural and perhaps correct consequence to declare that we are unique in the universe and why not that we have a purpose: we might be the ultimate peak of evolution of consciousness and through the symbolical Buddhist cosmology we strive to move up from one world to the next until we reach Enlightenment.
Is this much crazier than what science states? Theoretical physicists don’t know where to turn their heads and suggest totally unsubstantiated theories of parallel universes to explain what came before the Big Bang…
ANDREA: Are we all connected? Of course we are. We are all made of the same elements that once formed stars, and supernovas, and other living creatures. How is this less appealing and mystifying than an unsound theory of reincarnations, body seeking souls, and hungry ghosts?
REPLY: Whatever the ‘real’ answers might be to the questions we raised in this discussion, we are still far from the truth. I am mostly certain that science will not be able, at least during our time on this Earth, to develop the ultimate TOE. Therefore it makes sense to me to search that understanding through meditation and elevation of consciousness. That being said I continue to support science in all of its forms and I monitor its developments with anticipation regardless of whether new findings will support or confute my current beliefs.
ANDREA: The first problem I find is the insinuation that reincarnation and scientific observation could somehow coexist, or even benefit mutually. This is simply not true. Despite vague ad-hoc examples, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that reincarnation exists beyond what most biologists and scientists would describe as a continuation of the energy cycle. There has never been a conclusive study that was able to elevate reincarnation from its current condition of pseudoscience, a place it shares with alchemy, astrology, and phrenology among others.
REPLY: Some could argue that the absence of valid scientific evidence supporting the philosophical idea of reincarnation is due to the matter not being a subject of modern science. Nevertheless, being reincarnation an experience, it is absolutely scientific and perhaps psychotherapy will come up one day with a convincing method by which anyone will remember past lives... Until then we can only rely on the experiences of great minds of the past and present such as Pythagoras, Gautama, Laozi, Kanada, Plotinus, Plato, Origen, Mahavira, Yogaswami, Yogananda, Adi Granth, and many more…
ANDREA: On the other hand, there are innumerable studies showing that in no instance would you find a continuation of the cognitive processes beyond the natural death of the organism that produces them. In other words, the death of the brain signifies the death of the mental processes it produces.
Many "spiritual" people lack an understanding of even the basic tenets of world religions and philosophies (two very different subjects pertaining to more or less the same basic questions), and this has generated great confusion. Most people who seek consolation in Buddhism because it grants them a certain continuation to the very natural tendency of all living things to die, would be quite disappointed to learn that the Buddha categorically denied any possibility of the permanence of the soul, the mind, or the self.
REPLY: Spirituality is not measured by how educated we are about religions, philosophies, or science. Actually it is arguably the opposite as the more we rationally try to understand existence, the less we free our mind to experience it. While many seek comfort in existing systems of belief (misinterpreting them or otherwise), many others simply follow their feelings and sometimes these result to be closely aligned with some basic tenets of religions or philosophies.
ANDREA: Siddharta Gautama was unequivocal: when you die, you die. In Buddhism, death and life are often compared to two candles. We can be a dying candle lighting another, thus creating the condition for the light to perpetuate, but we cannot become the other candle.
REPLY: Right in saying that Buddhists don't believe in the soul intended as a spirit or ghost, but they (including Gautama) do believe in rebirth.
Also appropriate is the metaphor of the two candles to illustrate the lack of a constant self, although I don’t think it clearly depicts the continuum of the life cycle in Buddhism, a conception which is by the way not too far-off from the continuation of the energy cycle you acknowledged previously. Instead of the two candles I prefer Osho’s view of a single candle whose flame constantly changes never being the same twice but always connected. The flame changes incessantly disappearing into smoke with a new flame replacing it each moment. The first flame of when you light the candle and the last of when you put it out are different but are part of one chain. For lack of better words, I have referred to what keeps each flame connected as the soul, but perhaps we need a different term to describe that continuum.
ANDREA: What made the Buddha such a pivotal figure in the history of mankind was that he was one of the very first scientific minds of the East. He tried opulence and asceticism, and readily rejected them when he found them not to work. He had been introduced to the concept of eternal soul of Hinduism (and the consolation it brings), but decided to follow his observations instead. On is deathbed, he urged his disciples to always question everything, and to submit every idea to the test.
REPLY: I believe the test he was referring to was not a lab experiment but the test of ‘experience’. Wealth and asceticism did not work for him as paths to increase his consciousness but eventually he found his way through moderation and meditation.
ANDREA: Let us not forget that this happened more than 2500 years ago. Clinging on to ancient theories when our knowledge has improved so vastly is a nonsensical endeavour, and one that would make the Buddha himself ashamed. He made the best of what he had. If only he had known about galaxies, atoms, cells, and energy! How would he test his ideas today?
One of the main flaws with the whole "we can't quite explain this yet, so… god (or fairies, or spirits) did it!" is that it does nothing to improve our odds of understanding a concept. How would an unobservable, unmeasurable, and even indescribable entity ever solve any problem? Certainly science does not have an answer for everything, but that is no excuse to put a deity in there.
REPLY: I also did not mention God anywhere in the post and I totally agree that deities should not be used to cover holes in our understanding of the universe and its laws.
ANDREA: It is true that we don't exactly know how the first prokaryotes came into being, but we have sound, workable theories. Some of these theories will undoubtedly prove to be false, and others will take us one step closer to an answer. But we certainly shouldn't give up so easily, and believe that a "soul" would be a grand explanation (or even a remotely plausible hypothesis) of how inanimate matter could have turned into life. Give that idea a chance, and you'll have to give it to any other idea anybody will ever come up with!
The fact that you can't disprove something does not make it real. You can't disprove an invisible unicorn lives at the bottom of the sea, but you wouldn't waste a minute of your life pondering that possibility. "But many people have had an experience of reincarnation," you may say. Well of course, what could a unicorn at the bottom of the sea do for you? Clearly, believing that your dead loved ones still hang around is slightly more powerful (but raises all kinds of embarrassing questions). I submit to you that most people who were born in Baghdad have had visions of Mohammed, and that Christians love nothing more than being visited by the Lady of Fatima, but not by their ancestors reincarnated in a child.
REPLY:
As a general consideration I’d say it is fine to generate ideas to explain events that science cannot yet explicate; especially when you seem to agree that “certainly science does not have an answer for everything”. The big problem is when people blindly keep following religious views that have been thoroughly disconfirmed.
My suggestion that a soul could explain how inanimate matter has turned into life is in fact an idea just as the invisible unicorn. However, considering that ‘something’ (called soul or anything else) is carried forward from a previous death to guarantee the continuum of the life cycle is perhaps not as absurd especially when we consider that “most biologists and scientists already recognise a continuation of the energy cycle”.
I do not doubt the importance of nurturing our scientific endeavours which perhaps one day will have enough substance to disprove the main tenets (including rebirth) of great philosophies that have lasted the test of time. But so far, science is still throwing wild guesses to fabricate a possible TOE (Theory Of Everything) that is not much less absurd than the invisible unicorn idea.
ANDREA: Had we applied this method of explaining the unknown with whimsical conjectures instead of observable evidence, we would still be taking hearts out of sacrificial victims every morning to propitiate the Sun's rising. We would still believe in burning bushes and great floods. Excuse me, but I find the immensity of space, the swirling of galaxies, the wonderful trees and animals, and the fact that we are made of stardust much more appealing.
REPLY: It is in fact a very appealing portrayal and perhaps not far from the truth. But the immensity of space, the swirling of galaxies, the wonderful trees and animals, and the fact that we are made of stardust can all very well coexist with rebirth.
ANDREA: And finally, on the subject of life on other planets. The possibility of life on other planets even within our own solar system is being recalculated almost daily. Observations from Titan, Europa, Mars, and other corners of our small cosmic backyard suggest that life could indeed be everywhere.
Why have no green man ever contacted us? First of all, we must understand the difference between life and intelligent life. Intelligent life might be much rarer than micro-organisms. There has been life on this planet for more than 3 billion years, and yet we have been able to send signals out into space only for the last 60. This is a tiny, tiny window of opportunity that might not necessarily coincide with the same window of opportunity of other civilizations, if indeed they exist.
Secondly, the distances are so great that if the green men's civilization did happen to coincide with ours, and managed to send a signal just in the right direction, and in a form we could identify as artificial (and that's a lot of ifs), it might take tens of thousands of years for that signal to get to us.
REPLY: It is precisely because of the belief that life can exist on many planets, combined with the young age of our solar system (4.58 billion years) – when compared to some far away corners of the universe (13.7 billion years) – that we should by now have been contacted/invaded by green men. Assuming that several other planets in the universe have followed an evolutionary pathway similar to ours, there should be a few civilizations out there with technological advancements several billion years ahead of ours. I think it is biased to place extremely complex capabilities to communicate at the same level as signals we sent out 60 years ago!
Conversely, if we start saying how special our solar system is, how special Earth is, how special life is, and how special intelligent life is, then it is a natural and perhaps correct consequence to declare that we are unique in the universe and why not that we have a purpose: we might be the ultimate peak of evolution of consciousness and through the symbolical Buddhist cosmology we strive to move up from one world to the next until we reach Enlightenment.
Is this much crazier than what science states? Theoretical physicists don’t know where to turn their heads and suggest totally unsubstantiated theories of parallel universes to explain what came before the Big Bang…
ANDREA: Are we all connected? Of course we are. We are all made of the same elements that once formed stars, and supernovas, and other living creatures. How is this less appealing and mystifying than an unsound theory of reincarnations, body seeking souls, and hungry ghosts?
REPLY: Whatever the ‘real’ answers might be to the questions we raised in this discussion, we are still far from the truth. I am mostly certain that science will not be able, at least during our time on this Earth, to develop the ultimate TOE. Therefore it makes sense to me to search that understanding through meditation and elevation of consciousness. That being said I continue to support science in all of its forms and I monitor its developments with anticipation regardless of whether new findings will support or confute my current beliefs.
14 April, 2010
Is Reincarnation a Possibility?
Reincarnation has been considered by many. Numerous philosophers and mystics have discussed it and it is a central tenet to a surprising number of diverse spiritual traditions including Early Christianity, Judaic mysticism, Hinduism, and Buddhism.
I personally still do not know whether I should believe in it or not, but there are several supporting arguments. In this post, rather than discussing cases of remembrance of previous lives, providence, karma, or the difficulty by many in reaching spiritual enlightenment, I want to consider reincarnation from a more scientific angle.
Most of us would agree that when a living creature dies his energy fades away dispersed back into the universe. Science tells us that energy and mass are conserved quantities that cannot be created nor destroyed, but only converted from one form into another (gravitational, electric, heat, etc.) Therefore the total energy of the universe is a constant value that can never change. But then how does a newborn come about? Where is that energy coming from? Believers in reincarnation would answer by saying that since souls are deathless, seemingly they also must be birthless. Thus energy has always been there and it is only materializing into a physical body when a new organism is born!
In general, the word energy can be defined as "the potential for causing changes" and therefore energy is the cause of all change. The most common definition of energy is the activity that a certain force (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) can generate. It is the ability to do work. Due to a variety of forces in existence, energy has many different forms that can be grouped into two major categories: kinetic energy and potential energy. The question is whether potential energy can create life, and therefore whether energy can naturally change non-living substances into living creatures, something that science has yet to observe.
The mechanisms by which non-life became life are still elusive. According to scientists at the beginning of time on Earth non-living chemical entities such as water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) were electrically stimulated into forming the various precursors to life, such as hydrogen cyanide, amino acids, simple sugars, etc. These, in time, would have theoretically formed RNA and DNA the building blocks of life.
The presence of immortal souls could perhaps go hand-in-hand with the theories of evolution and would solve the mystery of life creation because 'life' is already an attribute of the soul and souls get attached to all organisms (animals, plants, fungi, micro-organisms) giving them life.
While it would be great to have an eternal soul that seeks perfection to ultimately be fit to remain in the spiritual world, I still have some problems with reincarnation, which hopefully will be answered in the years to come.
- Eternity. What was Birth before Life on Earth? Who/what was living, dying, and going through rebirth to ultimately find enlightenment?
Earth is the only planet in the universe known to harbour life. Given the relatively young age of Earth when compared to other parts of the universe, it would be reasonable to say that if other life forms existed, some of them would probably be several millions of years ahead of us. Their technology should be even more advanced than we imagine it in sci-fi movies, so why have not they made contact?
How will rebirth be possible when Earth will come to an end? What will be of all the souls waiting to be reborn? - Enlightenment. It seems to me that all creatures, other than man, live as if they JUST ARE. They appear to always live in a meditative state because they do not think but only experience and therefore apparently are in a perennial state of ZEN. How could their souls become more pure than what they already are? Being reborn into a human body would appear to me as a downgrading.
- Perhaps the big difference between an Enlightened human being and any other type of living organism is consciousness of that state. But if that is the case, then how can plants or even animals reach the new spiritual heights required for the soul to return in a human body?
01 April, 2010
Should We Get a Formal Education?
How important is it for new generations to receive a formal education and to do well in their studies?
I think it is very important because strong qualifications will give them the confidence to jump with both feet into the unknown, into a way of life that is different from the one they witness every day by looking at people around them.
While we are born prisoners of society, I believe we should become well equipped to survive in it according to its rules before we decide to break the chains and create our own parallel reality. Strong qualifications are part of this process as they help us to keep playing the game with a good hand until we feel ready to depart on our personal journey. When mentally and psycologically ready we'll have less fear of turning our backs to society because we'll know that if something goes wrong, or our feelings about a better way of life end up being just dreams, we will still be able to come back and society will embrace us once again with open arms.
Therefore it is ok to follow the standard path designed for us by society in terms of studying well, getting a job, buying a car, raising a family, getting a mortgage etc. but, as Plotinus would say, we should do all these activities as long as they do not diffuse our spiritual energy, and leave us with less being. It isn't what we do that is important, but who we are!
22 March, 2010
Futile questions
What's your name? Where are you from? What is your job? How old are you? These are probably the four most asked questions in our lives, and more importantly the ones that according to society define who we are.
The first one is perhaps necessary to make some sense when we refer to one another, but certainly not to define our identities. Yet we label good and bad names, parents debate for months over names for their children, artists often change their names to make them more captivating, we create middle names, nicknames, etc.
Among children and teenagers age is a great deal and naturally "how old are you?" is the second most important question. It is interesting to notice how children specify the months or even the days: "I am 4 and half!" but as we grow older we limit our answers to the years, and after we reach mid 30's we are rarely even asked about our age.
A third question, which instead acquires importance as we leave childhood, concerns our job.
Although there is not much in a job as for most of us is simply a mean to an end, this question becomes so important that almost fully defines our identities. Most people overidentify with what they do or create and so become John the Doctor, Paul the Lawyer, Sarah the Marketing Manager, etc. I personally hate this question because I want to be considered for much more than simply my job. As a result I have experienced so many different professions and acquired numerous specialisations which in the end make it impossible even for me to label myself as a researcher, a consultant, a scuba diving instructor, a swim coach, an academic, a manager, an entrepreneur, or so on...
A fourth question that I often try to avoid or give blurry answers to is "where are you from?" To me the nature of the question itself is bad as it seeks to separate rather than unite; it reinforces differences and sometimes hatred. Within a single city people from differenent suburbs look at each other differently, and the same applies across regions, between north and south of the same country, and ultimately across nations. The answer to the question becomes even more complicated for people who travel extensively and have often relocated, resided in various continents and perhaps acquired different citizenships.
There are of course a number of other questions we are often asked and some of them are extremely common in some countries but not in others. For example, in the Philippines the first question is "what is your religion?", while in Italy "which soccer team are you a fan of?" ranks vey high. Altought different in nature both of these questions answer the same need of belonging to a group. Whether we talk about etnicity, religion, politics, or sport the creation of groups gives us a sense of belonging but it also inevitably emphasizes differences and competition, which are not bad if controlled but just a stone throw away from mutating into racism, terrorism, war, and vandalism.
So, to summarize this post, there are two categories of questions we should be careful of, the ones aiming to define who we are in extremely simplistic terms and the ones with the purpose of creating competition among groups.
The first one is perhaps necessary to make some sense when we refer to one another, but certainly not to define our identities. Yet we label good and bad names, parents debate for months over names for their children, artists often change their names to make them more captivating, we create middle names, nicknames, etc.
Among children and teenagers age is a great deal and naturally "how old are you?" is the second most important question. It is interesting to notice how children specify the months or even the days: "I am 4 and half!" but as we grow older we limit our answers to the years, and after we reach mid 30's we are rarely even asked about our age.
A third question, which instead acquires importance as we leave childhood, concerns our job.
Although there is not much in a job as for most of us is simply a mean to an end, this question becomes so important that almost fully defines our identities. Most people overidentify with what they do or create and so become John the Doctor, Paul the Lawyer, Sarah the Marketing Manager, etc. I personally hate this question because I want to be considered for much more than simply my job. As a result I have experienced so many different professions and acquired numerous specialisations which in the end make it impossible even for me to label myself as a researcher, a consultant, a scuba diving instructor, a swim coach, an academic, a manager, an entrepreneur, or so on...
A fourth question that I often try to avoid or give blurry answers to is "where are you from?" To me the nature of the question itself is bad as it seeks to separate rather than unite; it reinforces differences and sometimes hatred. Within a single city people from differenent suburbs look at each other differently, and the same applies across regions, between north and south of the same country, and ultimately across nations. The answer to the question becomes even more complicated for people who travel extensively and have often relocated, resided in various continents and perhaps acquired different citizenships.
There are of course a number of other questions we are often asked and some of them are extremely common in some countries but not in others. For example, in the Philippines the first question is "what is your religion?", while in Italy "which soccer team are you a fan of?" ranks vey high. Altought different in nature both of these questions answer the same need of belonging to a group. Whether we talk about etnicity, religion, politics, or sport the creation of groups gives us a sense of belonging but it also inevitably emphasizes differences and competition, which are not bad if controlled but just a stone throw away from mutating into racism, terrorism, war, and vandalism.
So, to summarize this post, there are two categories of questions we should be careful of, the ones aiming to define who we are in extremely simplistic terms and the ones with the purpose of creating competition among groups.
05 March, 2010
What Should I Pack?
The longer the trip the less you should pack!
Ideally have only one backpack weighting less than 7kg and containing:
- An open-return ticket
- No itinerary or a very flexible one
- Visas (often easier and cheaper to obtain them directly at the border)
- No ICT stuff (max a cheap mobile and portable camera)
- Money split across multiple pre-paid cards + credit card + $800 cash
- Old clothes:
- sandals (shoes only in winter)
- 3 shirts
- 3 pants (long, short, costume)
- 6 underwear
- 1 pair of socks (if sandals instead of shoes)
- rain coat
- jumper
- Travel insurance
- Basic medicines
- Alarm clock
- Couple of books (hopefully profound topics)
- Toiletries
- nail clippers
- toothbrush/paste
- soap
- toilette paper
- shampoo (less than 200ml)
- sun cream 40+ (less than 200ml)
- Sunglasses (if necessary)
- No jewellery, watch, rings, etc.
- Earplugs
- Sleep mask
- Notepad/pencil/pen/pencil sharpener
- Small lock (no key)
- Midsize towel
- Two plastic bags
- Lonely planet of first country to visit
- Wallet
- Passport
- Belt for cards/money safety
- Insects repellent
22 February, 2010
The Art of Travelling
I am not a professional photographer and neither intend to become one. Yet, every once in a while during my travels I take a lucky shot either thanks to the subject, the colours, the angle, or something else. These few pictures are important for me as they represent great memories to treasure for life.
A nice picture taken in a remote part of the world really has the power to transport us over there, to momentarily make us forget the routine of our lives, to raise questions in our heads about creation and the universe.
If a single picture can do all that, when we move from frame to frame in a collection of similarly beautiful shots, we can really imagine ourselves pulled into those far away lands, forget who we are and where we come from. Could the spirit of a traveller be exactly this: to abandon himself into the unknown to rediscover his most hidden nature?
A trip in foreign lands where life is still simple is not just an escape from our homeland, the traffic, our job, etc... It is rather a cut from a limited life, constrained by a society with too may concerns, rules and obligations. Running away, even if temporarily, from such madness is like living in a parallel dimension characterized by complete freedom bounded purely by nature and chance.
The main aim of the real traveller however is not to escape his daily life, but rather to experience a FULL life, where every day is a mystery. A travel is a metaphor of life, a journey into the unknown, a way of testing ourselves, a voyage of discovery, growth, triumph and defeat. How far can we go without sleeping or with limited food in an unfamiliar territory? How do we blend into a slum, a local tribe, or a characteristic food market? What emotions do we face in front of a desert, a jungle, or at 5,000 meters? A trip can be perceived as a search for the “moment”. When I travel, there are no plans, I am alone and always in different places. As a result, every second is new, unexpected, and intriguing. The average day seems to last a week rather than the real 24 hours!
I am strongly convinced that Western (or better Modern) society is significantly damaging our lives. We fear things that are just natural occurrences, our priorities are illogical, our feelings/emotions became more and more shallow, etc. By travelling in remote places, we can still witness today a GOOD life. That can be easily perceived by everyone who is just willing to look as no search is required to find big smiles of children faces, serenity in the expressions of old people, joy and laugh among farmers in tribes where you’ll never find a single piece of plastic, or big families eating together. And most importantly the aspect to reflect on is that such people eat while hundreds of flies feast at their tables, walk miles to and from work/school, sleep on wooden beds, have floors made of dust rather than concrete, and bamboo walls.
We have to completely rethink our way of life if we want to find happiness! Through travelling and by witnessing happy people in poor places we can realize that and then perhaps progressively get rid of most of the fears and delusions that exist only in the minds of modern men. That will eventually help us to find again the simple answers to existential questions that we keep putting aside for better times: how do we find happiness? What is the meaning of life? Should we fear death? What is freedom? What is friendship? What is love?
A nice picture taken in a remote part of the world really has the power to transport us over there, to momentarily make us forget the routine of our lives, to raise questions in our heads about creation and the universe.
If a single picture can do all that, when we move from frame to frame in a collection of similarly beautiful shots, we can really imagine ourselves pulled into those far away lands, forget who we are and where we come from. Could the spirit of a traveller be exactly this: to abandon himself into the unknown to rediscover his most hidden nature?
A trip in foreign lands where life is still simple is not just an escape from our homeland, the traffic, our job, etc... It is rather a cut from a limited life, constrained by a society with too may concerns, rules and obligations. Running away, even if temporarily, from such madness is like living in a parallel dimension characterized by complete freedom bounded purely by nature and chance.
The main aim of the real traveller however is not to escape his daily life, but rather to experience a FULL life, where every day is a mystery. A travel is a metaphor of life, a journey into the unknown, a way of testing ourselves, a voyage of discovery, growth, triumph and defeat. How far can we go without sleeping or with limited food in an unfamiliar territory? How do we blend into a slum, a local tribe, or a characteristic food market? What emotions do we face in front of a desert, a jungle, or at 5,000 meters? A trip can be perceived as a search for the “moment”. When I travel, there are no plans, I am alone and always in different places. As a result, every second is new, unexpected, and intriguing. The average day seems to last a week rather than the real 24 hours!
I am strongly convinced that Western (or better Modern) society is significantly damaging our lives. We fear things that are just natural occurrences, our priorities are illogical, our feelings/emotions became more and more shallow, etc. By travelling in remote places, we can still witness today a GOOD life. That can be easily perceived by everyone who is just willing to look as no search is required to find big smiles of children faces, serenity in the expressions of old people, joy and laugh among farmers in tribes where you’ll never find a single piece of plastic, or big families eating together. And most importantly the aspect to reflect on is that such people eat while hundreds of flies feast at their tables, walk miles to and from work/school, sleep on wooden beds, have floors made of dust rather than concrete, and bamboo walls.
We have to completely rethink our way of life if we want to find happiness! Through travelling and by witnessing happy people in poor places we can realize that and then perhaps progressively get rid of most of the fears and delusions that exist only in the minds of modern men. That will eventually help us to find again the simple answers to existential questions that we keep putting aside for better times: how do we find happiness? What is the meaning of life? Should we fear death? What is freedom? What is friendship? What is love?
14 February, 2010
The Illusion of World Peace
World Peace is no more than an illusion if proposed by developed nations. It is unattainable and unsustainable because based upon false assumptions of unlimited resources.
Let's first consider the fundamental principle of a capitalist market economy: competition. If there are groups, competition is likely to be part of their nature. It might be hidden through cooperation when resources abound, but it explodes whenever they lack. History is full of examples with almost every war caused by lack of resources by one group and the outcome being a redistribution of wealth.
By analysing the past, one might suggest to eliminate groups. Ok, let's be all the same, equal among equals. Nothing new here in principle as the elimination of classes has already been repetitively attempted in socialist and communist states, although never with real success. Nevertheless, let us assume that socialist ideals could be effectively implemented. That would mean no more diversity, the ending of national borders, and therefore no more reasons for war. However, there would still be a lack of resources as the superabundance of goods and services promised by Karl Marx and the likes is finite given the limits of our planet, while population growth and its needs appear not to be so. Unless people mentality was going to significantly change, the only foreseeable outcome in a stateless situation would be total chaos.
So, we need to simultaneously unite but also change. A process of unification has been underway for more than a decade, but we have been moving in the wrong direction. Instead of copying the best practices in the world and conform to those, we have been following the worst examples. As a result, today we have more drugs, less time for family life, more fast foods, more pornography, more divorces, more violence, less time outdoor, less spirituality, less dreams, less care for nature, more gadgets, more spending, more working hours, less affordable housing, etc. Somehow we need to reverse this trend while there are still cultures and people not yet fully assimilated into the new system and who can still provide living examples of a different kind of life.
In parallel with a unification of people across the globe based on shared ideas and principles rather than ethnicity, religion or nationality, we need to change at an individual level. Many changes have to take place, but most importantly we need to:
1) Become more independent from society, and
2) Become more spiritual (not religious)
Take away frmm a man and he will act like an animal! Humanity has to voluntarily readjust its standards of living to a level of modesty that is sustainable and almost entirely detached from world events. As an example, a Global Financial Crisis should not potentially cause extreme hardship on an individual or a family over the following 12 months, and neither should a raise in interest rates, losing a job, a natural disaster, etc.
Through spirituality we might become more aware, awakened in a world of sleeping people, and basically more alive. Spirituality is the key also in terms of relationships. Similarities with others and sense of belonging depend only in minimal part on cultural backgrounds. It is a false feeling. Much more important is instead to be surrounded by similarly spiritual beings. Also in a couple relationship, same spirituality overcomes all other differences.
Let's first consider the fundamental principle of a capitalist market economy: competition. If there are groups, competition is likely to be part of their nature. It might be hidden through cooperation when resources abound, but it explodes whenever they lack. History is full of examples with almost every war caused by lack of resources by one group and the outcome being a redistribution of wealth.
By analysing the past, one might suggest to eliminate groups. Ok, let's be all the same, equal among equals. Nothing new here in principle as the elimination of classes has already been repetitively attempted in socialist and communist states, although never with real success. Nevertheless, let us assume that socialist ideals could be effectively implemented. That would mean no more diversity, the ending of national borders, and therefore no more reasons for war. However, there would still be a lack of resources as the superabundance of goods and services promised by Karl Marx and the likes is finite given the limits of our planet, while population growth and its needs appear not to be so. Unless people mentality was going to significantly change, the only foreseeable outcome in a stateless situation would be total chaos.
So, we need to simultaneously unite but also change. A process of unification has been underway for more than a decade, but we have been moving in the wrong direction. Instead of copying the best practices in the world and conform to those, we have been following the worst examples. As a result, today we have more drugs, less time for family life, more fast foods, more pornography, more divorces, more violence, less time outdoor, less spirituality, less dreams, less care for nature, more gadgets, more spending, more working hours, less affordable housing, etc. Somehow we need to reverse this trend while there are still cultures and people not yet fully assimilated into the new system and who can still provide living examples of a different kind of life.
In parallel with a unification of people across the globe based on shared ideas and principles rather than ethnicity, religion or nationality, we need to change at an individual level. Many changes have to take place, but most importantly we need to:
1) Become more independent from society, and
2) Become more spiritual (not religious)
Take away frmm a man and he will act like an animal! Humanity has to voluntarily readjust its standards of living to a level of modesty that is sustainable and almost entirely detached from world events. As an example, a Global Financial Crisis should not potentially cause extreme hardship on an individual or a family over the following 12 months, and neither should a raise in interest rates, losing a job, a natural disaster, etc.
Through spirituality we might become more aware, awakened in a world of sleeping people, and basically more alive. Spirituality is the key also in terms of relationships. Similarities with others and sense of belonging depend only in minimal part on cultural backgrounds. It is a false feeling. Much more important is instead to be surrounded by similarly spiritual beings. Also in a couple relationship, same spirituality overcomes all other differences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)