Reprogramming your robots

I gave a talk yesterday at a local group called Chrysalis, and it occurred to me that the topic of my talk might be of interest to more people than were in the audience. So here it is.

Reprogramming Your Robots – a précis

By Frank DeMarco

One thing about psychic stuff is that it doesn’t really fit into categories. You think you’re working on communicating with guidance, and you realize you’re developing the ability to heal. You think to yourself, aha, I’ve learned something about healing, and you find out that what you thought was physical is actually mental, and what you thought was mental is spiritual, and what you thought was spiritual is physical. Everything interacts. Everything interconnects. In fact, you can say that everything interconnects, or you can say that there’s only one everything, which looks different from different viewpoints.

That probably sounds pretty abstract, but it has important consequences.

Continue reading Reprogramming your robots

Sheldrake, TED, and paradigm wars

This from philosopher Christian de Quincey, anent Rupert Sheldrake’s censored TEDx talk.

For what it’s worth, Yeats in his old age speculated that there is something in the nature of the times (any given times) that makes certain people unable to entertain certain categories of thought. I suspect that is true. We’re not nearly as free to think our own thoughts as we think we are. I don’t think i could become a physicalist (materialist) if i wanted to. It just strikes me as a superstition.

http://www.christiandequincey.com/?p=2050

‘TED’ Sparks Paradigm War

Internet video site TED has removed presentations by biologist Rupert Sheldrakeand historian Graham Hancock because—according to TED—their ideas are “pseudoscience.”

What does this mean?

Well, simply, it means that one of the leading Internet sites for sharing intellectual ideas has shut out views that challenge deep-rooted dogmas of modern science—a decidedly unscientific act. It means the folks at TED buy into mainstream scientific materialism as the last word on what is “real” or “ideas worth spreading.”

So, what happened? 

The TED organizers have decided

 

[Etc]

Yeats, Working Magic

 I find it a great pity that so much experimentation and discovery by men and women who become famous in other fields is disregarded and ignored as though by a conspiracy to silence testimony of the existence and interaction of the non-physical world. You see it in people’s non-quotation of Lindbergh’s out-of-body experiences over the north Atlantic in 1927 (though he himself described it fully in The Spirit of St. Louis) and, especially, in people writing of W.B. Yeats as if he were a poet and nationalist who had only an incidental and fanciful relationship to the other side.

Continue reading Yeats, Working Magic

Ventura on Rukeyser’s “Elegy in Joy”

MICHAEL VENTURA

LETTERS AT 3AM –

ME, MYSELF, I, AND MURIEL

Austin Chronicle – April 5, 2013

 When I taught high school, I’d go to the blackboard, choose a white stick of chalk, and draw a cube. In its center I’d write an upper-case I.

   Then, with my white chalk, I’d draw a figure of similar size: a squiggly, uneven oblong, like the outline of a cloud. Then, with several sticks of colored chalk, I’d write I and i in varied sizes and at varied angles, and note that an upside-down I looks just like a right-side-up I.

   “Here’s the deal,” I’d say. “The cube: That’s how Western society, especially American society, defines the individual. He/she possesses firm, easily measurable boundaries, and is governed by a central self, or ego, or I; that same central self signs your checks, lusts after whomever, does your homework, and says ‘Merry Christmas.’ But some folks question this. They’d draw the cloud-like figure and say, ‘What if an individual is not so clearly boundaried? What if your I when you’re with your friends is significantly different when you’re with your parents? What if you even gesture and move with different I’s — different when you’re superdressed for the prom as opposed to hanging out in a bathing suit? What if you experience different I’s going from one thing to another all day? It’s all you, feels like you, but the behavior varies – sometimes, it varies a lot.

Continue reading Ventura on Rukeyser’s “Elegy in Joy”

Alien Messages and Our Genetic Code

i like anybody’s thinking that is outside the box. Particularly when it is scientific speculation, i sometimes get my hopes up. But usually it turns out to be about half an inch outside the box, as here. How’s this for a stupid quote? (My boldface):  “Biological SETI inevitably smacks head-on into an idea that is completely antithetical to science: the concept of intelligent design (ID).”

Perhaps the person saying it is an example of the improbability of intelligent design, but I don’t think it applies to the rest of us. Accident is more likely than intelligent design? The sacrosanct evolution-by-chance-over-uncounted-millions-of-years is more likely than intelligent design? I don’t think so. But the question is, who is doing the designing, and this article can’t seem to even consider the possibility that the physical was created out of the non-physical. Thus, if reality resembles a hologram, it must be a program running somewhere else in the physical universe.  Ridiculous.

Anyway,  

http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/could-an-alien-message-be-embedded-in-our-genetic-code-130401.htm

ALIEN LIFE & EXOPLANETS

Is An Alien Message Embedded In Our Genetic Code?

APR 1, 2013 11:27 AM ET // BY RAY VILLARD

The answer to whether or not we are alone in the universe could be right under our nose, or, more literally, inside every cell in our body.

Could our genes have an intelligently designed “manufacturer’s stamp” inside them, written eons ago elsewhere in our galaxy? Such a “designer label” would be an indelible stamp of a master extraterrestrial civilization that preceded us by many millions or billions of years. As their ultimate legacy, they recast the Milky Way in their own biological image.

Vladimir I. shCherbak of al-Farabi Kazakh National University of Kazakhstan, and Maxim A. Makukov of the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute, hypothesize that an intelligent signal embedded in our genetic code would be a mathematical and semantic message that cannot be accounted for by Darwinian evolution. They call it “biological SETI.” What’s more, they argue that the scheme has much greater longevity and chance of detecting E.T. than a transient extraterrestrial radio transmission.

[Etc]

Carl Jung on religion and the unconscious

[From an interview of CG Jung by Georg Gerster conducted on June 7, 1960, for broadcast on the Swiss radio network, as found in the book C.G. Jung Speaking.]

GG: “When I asked you earlier about a critique of our civilization I… was thinking of the problem of our time, as they say. There must have been periods when man’s relations with the unconscious through various other channels of communication were infinitely more alive than they are today.”

CGJ: “Yes, there is no doubt that it was only the 19th century that broke with this tradition and became increasingly intellectual, with the result that a lot of vitally necessary things have become obsolete.

Continue reading Carl Jung on religion and the unconscious

Jung: The individual is a vessel of life

 

From an interview of CG Jung by Georg Gerster conducted on June 7, 1960, for broadcast on the Swiss radio network, as found in the book CG Jung speaking.

G: “When I asked you earlier about a critique of our civilization I… was thinking of the problem of our time, as they say. There must have been periods when man’s relations with the unconscious through various other channels of communication were infinitely more alive than they are today.”

J: “Yes, there is no doubt that it was only the 19th century that broke with this tradition and became increasingly intellectual, with the result that a lot of vitally necessary things have become obsolete. Just think of the crisis of Christianity we are passing through today — it simply means that we have lost all sense of its necessity. We no longer know what it is good for. In earlier times people knew, in a way. Naturally they had faith, but this faith was rooted in the feeling that the Christian tradition was ‘satisfactory,’ it was something self-evident, part of the picture. Even with scientific books, you need only think of old Scheuchzer, of Zürich who began his scientific works with the story of Creation!”

“Do you see any chance for psychology to do something here? I mean you can’t put the clock back.”

“No, that’s impossible.”

“On the other hand, as a psychologist with these insights, you can’t let the world go its own sweet way!”

“Yes, but what is the voice of a single individual? These things are evidently so difficult to understand that you just can’t talk to people about them. It is amazing how little people understand of such matters. They don’t think about them at all. Naturally, a very great deal could be said in this respect. But, you see, it concerns the individual so very much that it is far too boring for people! Of course, if I knew a remedy that could be injected into 10,000 people at one go, that would be popular, especially if one didn’t have to do anything about it oneself. But the very idea that you should begin with yourself, that is totally out of the question! One must always have something that is good for 100,000, for a million people, but not for the individual, he is far too uninteresting.

“We have been so convinced by science how nugatory a human life is, and contemporary history has indeed demonstrated before our eyes how human lives count for nothing. And the individual is so utterly convinced of his nothingness that he makes no effort to get anywhere with himself, to develop himself inwardly in any way. It is too hopeless, the individual is nothing, and is naturally a false view that the individual is nothing. The individual is a vessel of life. Every individual is the bearer of life, and life is worn only by individuals. It does not exist in itself, there is no life of the millions. That is nonsense, but millions of individuals are vessels of life and for each of them the problem of the individual is the whole problem. And then they say: ‘Yes, but look at So-and-so, that’s no vessel of life!’ The individual is banalized, you see. Most people get discouraged.

“The theologians surely ought to be convinced that the individual soul is the vessel of life, and the thing of greatest importance. Yet a theologian told me himself: ‘We must get through to the masses. If we tried to treat every single individual we would never get anywhere!’ I said: ‘Well, how did Christianity conquer the world in the first place? It always went from individual to individual.’

“…. But taking yourself seriously is considered improper, you’re an eccentric, putting on self-important airs, etc. Everywhere you come up against this depreciation of the human psyche. Of course when you say ‘the human psyche’ everyone thinks it’s fine, it is someone else’s affair, but I myself and what I do are not considered at all. If nobody bothers about his own psyche, then there is nothing you can do from the psychological angle, you can only say how things are and make yourself unpopular!”