The Flooks

Devotion

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:03:00 +0000

I am a concubine for my Lord
and poor prostitute,
never demanding my wages,
accepting sweet words
as payment.

And when that pimp,
the World,
comes looking after me
my hands are empty,
my pockets barren.

And yes, I will be beaten,
each lash sweet
with the memory of my Lord's
embrace.

Mount Helena in Winter

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:05:00 +0000

snow falling
through lodgepole pines
beautiful white

Poem for Brigid

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:01:00 +0000

Oh, sweet Brigid, sing in my breast
Of light and love's warm sun rays.
'Tis time we laid old maid Winter to rest
And made room for your warmer days.

Oh, sweet Brigid, weave me a spell,
That will brighten the cloud-dreary skies.
Bring my heart water from your sacred well
Fill my ears with sounds of new-born cries.

Oh, sweet Brigid, light me a fire
Cast your light that will drive out all dark.
Kindle my soul and my spirit entire
With the song of the Robin and Meadowlark.

We've waited long nights for your sweet return,
Sweet Brigid, sweet Brigid, for you we have yearned!
Yes, we've waited long nights for your sweet return,
Sweet Brigid, sweet Brigid, for you we have yearned!

The Latest Christian Teen Devotional Excercise

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 02:32:00 +0000

www.saddlebacking.com

Could this be the future of Christianity??? Let's hope so!

Friendly Advice

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:28:00 +0000

Peace does not in sadness live,
Nor in a heavy heart can Love reside,
For only unrest can a sadness give,
And a heavy heart cannot open wide.

Go you then, and live in Joy,
And let your Joy a beacon be.
Look you for light in many things,
And in many things a light you'll see.

Know what is come is soon to pass,
So take now time to treasure this,
This grain of sand in the hourglass,
Oh what a shame it would be for you to miss!

See how it sparkles and it glitters so,
In one brief moment's quick descent,
Giving its all for this one show,
And this one show for you was meant.

So perk your ears and watch you close,
And love each moment's brief display,
And feel you things and sniff your nose,
You can fill your life with Love this way.

I tell you this because I Love you so,
And it hurts my heart to hear you cry.
There are so many things I would have you know,
Like your heart is a bird, if you let it fly.

I'll put the key in the latch, but it's yours to turn.
So turn it, turn it! That bird has wings!
It needs open sky if it is to learn,
To fly, to soar...to perch on things.

But with your worries you've built a cage,
And each day a layer to the walls you add,
And when you grow cramped you moan and rage,
And claim that the world has made you sad.

But I know a secret that you have forgot,
And this cage that you've built, I can help you unlock it.
Listen, you're searching for something you've got,
And the key to this cage, you'll find in your pocket.

Love is the key and the sky and your wings
And life a gift not made to last.
So hurry, go now, Love you many things,
For today's tomorrow will soon be past.

So let now Peace in Happiness live,
And let now Love in our hearts reside,
And happy Love let us receive and give,
And let our hearts be open wide.

For Peace is treasure that will not rust,
And Love the only truth we can always trust.

Waiting

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 03:06:00 +0000

Sometimes I am patient as Death,
or Earth
awaiting the return of all things.
Other times impatience wells
and I am kin to fruitflies, anxious to procreate
and pass on.
So often I feel that I am,
and have,
and can do, nothing.
And this pleases me and makes me
think of you

Keeping Time

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:05:00 +0000

I could spend the whole night

getting back to my stone-chipping roots
hand and skin where flint and obsidian
once hid.

The slap is sharp

but makes nothing,
slices nothing, and I sweat but for
quivering air, and no animal falls lifeless to feed
the beloved community.

Quivering air and a tapping foot,

a song to lift the melancholy
and time to keep it all in place. The children grow, they turn away
and back and have children of their own and get old and die.

Our flint-knapping marks the rhythm of their passing,

we leave only flakes and arrowheads to mark our time
and quivering air in a rhythm that always is,
even when we have ceased from playing it.

How to make a sacrifice to MOLOCH

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Wed, 30 May 2007 01:34:00 +0000

1. Prepare an alter to MOLOCH.

The alter should consist of a television tuned to Fox News with the volume muted (sacrifices made during Bill O’Reilly’s show are especially effacious). On top of the alter you should place one black candle representing the ABYSS OF ETERNAL CONSUMPTION, and one red candle representing THE NECTAR OF COLLATERAL DAMAGE.

2. Stake the SACRIFIAL BEAST next to the alter.

Appropriate selection of the SACRIFICIAL BEAST is of the utmost importance. Either a black female goat in estrus or the un-baptized baby of a Christian family are to be prefered. If circumstances do not allow you to obtain either of the above, a common house cat or elderly neighbor may be substituted.

3. Cast a protective circle of dead cockroaches around the alter.

Dead mice may also be used. If you are using cockroaches, poisoning is preferred to squishing, as squished cockroaches are messy and difficult to work with.

4. Light the black candle and recite aloud three times the first sacred mantra:

MOLOCH IS ONE AND KARL ROVE IS HIS APOSTLE

5. Light the red candle and recite aloud three times the second sacred mantra:

MAHU CHENEY MAHU MURDOCH MAHU COULTER MAHU BLAIR.

6. Cut the throat of the SACRIFICIAL BEAST.

Babies have a lot of fat around their necks, which can make it difficult to know if you have cut deep enough to sever the jugular vein. If you are using one for a SACRIFICIAL BEAST don’t take any chances: decapitate the motherfucker.

7. Write out a check for at least $200 to the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

Write the boon you are seeking or the name of the person you want killed on the Note line. Remember, the bigger your check, the better the chance that MOLOCH will grant your request!

and a Happy New Year...

noreply@blogger.com (iHabitus) — Wed, 23 May 2007 16:32:00 +0000

... and all the holidays/regular days we missed between now and six months ago.

Diptherio and I talked of picking things up again, so here I go.

I am spurred by how useful and entertaining I found the first 14 months of posts when I was reminiscing. I encourage perusal. Only 62 posts (plus comments), but some of them are good.

Actually useful isn't a fitting adjective for our posts. We have yet to post anything very instructive.

Anyway, it'd be good to hear from you again (especially you, Yum, as you have been particularly absent from regular communication channels).

If the posts teach me anything, it's that we do our best work when there is an assignment.

For our first return assignment lets create a how-to in words or pictures or both (it can be technical or abstract). If you don't know what you want to demonstrate, please choose from this short list:

making and/or eating a sandwich
answering a knocked door/rung doorbell
cheating at scrabble
rubbing your eyes so hard you see stars
faking out
overstaying your welcome
folding a poker hand

These are just suggestions. I'm not even sure I'll choose one of them, but we'll see.

Poem in 6 min. of Less...Go!

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:24:00 +0000

In Lax, New Years Eve

Japanese girls in hooker-boots,
Hare Krishnas Gita-thumping in the lobby,
complements my stash then requests cash
Pasty white americans, bleached by LA smog,
and their children on cell-phones,
dreaming of runnig the suburban off the road
while talking with Brad Pitt.
Fake palms seem healthier than real ones,
Asian mini-skirts show healthy asian buns.
The celibate watches, waits,
ignores the ignoble fantasy.

In Defense of Not Knowing

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:58:00 +0000

Delivered to the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship of Missoula MT, Dec. 10, 2006.
_____________________________________________________________________

On Exactitude in Science

...In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of an Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers guild struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

Suarez Miranda, Viajes de varones prudentes,
Libro IV, Cap. XLV, Lerida, 1658

--Jorge Luis Borges, from The Maker, reprinted in The Aleph and Other Stories, trans. A. Hurley.

In his book, Sense and Science, Alfred Korzybski coined the phrase, "the map is not the territory." What he meant by this was to remind us that those conceptions, paradigms, and belief systems with which we interpret the reality that surrounds us are maps of the territory of reality, not reality itself. Due to his firm belief in what, on the face of it, seems a rather self-evident assertion, Korzybski declared that the word "is", along with its various conjugations, should be expunged from our vocabulary, since the very word implies a confusion of map and territory, model and reality.

For instance, I might say, the shirt I am wearing is green." This statement would, however, be incorrect, according to Korzybski, because it fudges the distinction between map and territory. My shirt appears to me to be green because green light-waves are reflecting off of it, while red light is being absorbed, but to say my shirt "is" green is to confuse our perceptions, our maps of reality, with the reality itself.

Our tendency to gloss over the distinction between map and territory, implicit in the very language we use to think with, leads to no end of confusion, especially in the sciences, which we generally expect to explain to us what reality "really is". And this tendency may lead not only to confusion but to outright contempt or even hatred. This usually occurs when two people using different maps of reality attempt to communicate, one or both of them believeing their map to be reality. One refers to a landmark, clearly labeled on her map, the other consults his map and, finding no such landmark, blithely contradicts her. Name calling and fisticuffs ensue.

Many people, when confronted with statements that contradict their own map of reality, assume the propounder of these statements must be un-educated, deluded, or just plain crazy. It doesn't occur to them that maybe the other, spouting these absurd statements, is simply refering to a different map of reality, which may show different aspects of the landscape than their own, or bear different labels on major landmarks. This particular form of close-mindedness stems, of course, from mistaking one's own map of reality for reality itself, and is as prone to strike "open-minded" liberals as "closed-minded" conservatives.

If you're like me, this kind of thing can be accepted on an intellectual level rather easily, but to accept it practically, existentially, is somewhat more difficult. I may intellectually consent that my views of reality are just that: views, with no more "objective" claim to reality than anyone else's, but when I am actually confronted by another with a different viewpoint, I find it hard not to assume that they are just wrong. The reason for this difficulty, I think, stems from our linguistic conceptualization of Being.

Something either "is" or it "isn't," but never both, never neither. If my view "is" right, than a contradictory view must "be" wrong. It is difficult to concieve that two contradictory statements might both be true, or that a statement might be both true and false, the structure of our language all but prohibits it. If I admit that a contradictory view "is right", I must be assuming that my view "is wrong." It is this false dichotomy, created by our linguistic conceptualization of Being, that leads us to so violently reject the value of views or opinions that contradict our own, after all, who ever admitted they were wrong without a fight?

Fortunately, reality is much more nuanced than language, and the universe has no problem affirming contradictory truths. For instance, I can tell you that right now I am simultaneously sitting still, writing this, travelling at hundreds of miles an hour, and moving at near-light speed. All of these statements are true, depending on my point of reference, that is, depending on the relevent map of reality. Viewed from here in this room I am standing still, viewed from the moon I can be seen to move around the axis of the earth, viewed from the center of the solar system I can be seen to move also around the sun, viewed from the center of the milkyway, even greater addittional movement is percievable. No one of these perspectives is objectively right or wrong, and so none of the seemingly contradictory statements derived from them are objectively right or wrong. This type of relitivity applies to other types of truth as well: emotional, spiritual, psychological, philosophical and otherwise.

For instance, say a person is experiencing depression. A neurologist might claim that the cause is a chemical imbalance in the brain, a priest might say that the cause is demon-possession, while the psychoanalyst claims that the root cause is repressed childhood trauma. Which of these is truly the case? The answer depends, of course, on the map of reality to which one is refering. We might protest that "obviously" demon-possession can be ruled out wince we all know that demons don't exist. The problem with this is that excorcisms have been known to work. In the final analysis, our judgement of the truth of these competing claims must rest upon their efficacy. We might say that effective excorcisms are merely the placebo effect, but then we committ the sin of speculating beyond the evidence (not to mention that "placebo effect" is simply euphamism for our ignorance). The priest, we should add, committs the same sin when he claims that his effectous excorcism is proof of the existance of demons. All we have really is the phenomenological data: patient depressed, excorcism performed, patient no longer depressed. And the same goes for psychoanalysis and drug therapy.

The question is not which belief system is true, but rather which belief system is relevant. In our example of the depressed patient, the question is which belief system allows him to recover. Whichever one that is will provide him with the "correct", that is to say relevant, map of reality. To insist that an effective reality map "is wrong" because it does not agree with our own map, even if our own map has proven ineffective, is simply to display our own prejudice and intellectual bias. It is always possible that some excorcisms are effective because demons do exist, just in some way we haven't yet considered.

Our culture, for the last few hundred years, has been obsessed with scientific truth and with the material technology that the quest for that truth has engendered. Scientific knowledge and material technology, however, have proven quite ill-suited for application to many of the problems which we humans face. True, for certain problems, science and technology have been quite effective, but when I am confronted by another being with whom I must interact, all our super-string theories and international space stations help me not one jot. Unfortunately, in our fervor for ever greater heights of scientific learning and ever more grandiose feats of material technology, we have completely rejected the validity of other reality maps that could help us in just these situations.

If I am in the midst of a difficult relationship, which do you suppose would be the more helpful reality map: that God is Everything, God is Love, I am Love; or we're all headed for Oblivion, there is no higher consciousness than my own, Existance is meaningless? For obvious reasons, the first of these two belief systems is more liekly to lead to a positive outcome in a difficult relationship than the latter. Sadly, many a rational person will flatly deny the truth of the former belief system on the grounds that it conflicts with their intellectual beliefs.

And can we not say that our intellectual , scientific beliefs are "more true" than unverifiable religous beliefs? Well, for starters, only about 4% of all the "stuff" in the universe is percievable by humans, even with the aid of our most sensitive scientific insturments. Of the remainder, 23% is Dark Matter and 73% is Dark Energy. We know virtually nothing about Dark Matter and Energy, other than that they must exist; as to their nature and composition we can only speculate. As David Cline put it in Scientific American, "The motions of...visible matter reveal that it is merely flotsam on an unseen sea of unknown material. We know little about that sea. The terms we use to describe it, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, serve mainly as expressions for our ignorance."

Matters hardly improve when we move from the scientific sphere to the psychological sphere, where we actually spend our lives. Here we have not only to contend with our physical perceptual limitations but also our own ideosyncratic cognitive biases. These stem from our linguistic programming and from our socially constructed maps of reality. These maps tell us what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what is not, what is common sense and what is sheer folly. It should go without saying that these maps are quite varied from culture to culture and from person to person, and none of them can be said to be "objectively" correct or incorrect, as none can be judged but with reference to some other subjective map. What is common sense from one perspective may be sheer folly from another perspective, but the reverse may also be true, and how can we choose beween competing versions of common sense, when as Albert Einstein put it, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18"?

What I am trying to get at here is this: all of our "truths" are only truths from a particular angle, from a particular perspective on reality. There is no way to get around this. Perception and cognition both require that vast amounts of information be tuned-out or disregarded. As the sons of the Cartographers discovered in the opening story, a map that doesn't disregard much of the territory is utterly useless. If we could see radio waves and cellphone transmissions, not to mention infra-red and ultraviolet light, we would be functionally blind, our visual reality map would be worthless.

This means, of course, that all our perceptions and all our understandings are necessarily incomplete. We must keep in mind that there may, in fact, be truths that we simply cannot percieve using our accustomed maps of reality. And while a particular reality map may be useful in many situations, that doesn't mean we should cling blindly to it when it ceases to be effective.

Once we have accepted the validity of opposing viewpoints, the real fun can begin, because once we have stopped rejecting them as invalid we may ourselves step into them occasionally, to there glean some truth which otherwise may have escaped our notice. In this manner can our own existances be enriched, by drinking deeper of the infinite ocean of Meaning. Also, our ability to understand and communicate with others will be improved. We need no longer dismiss the fundamentalist Christian as a wacko, but can rather enter into his perspective for a time, and express ourselves using the language of his reality map. After all, it is the meaning that is important in communication, not the vocabulary used to convey it.

So this is my wish for the upcoming year, that we might all keep in mind that the realities which we experience are but a tiny fraction of true Reality, of the Universe as it is, and that we allow this knowledge to make us less judgemental of others whose realities may seem strange to us, and that we might even try to step into some of these other realities, to see what truths we might discover there.

An Epigram of Kabir

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 05:04:00 +0000

Kabir:

The hut was made of sticks
And all ten sides caught fire;

Pundits, pundits--

they burned inside

While the fools ran out

and saved their lives

Voting in Chicago ...or: the republican who sketched my portrait in a church basement

noreply@blogger.com (iHabitus) — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:15:00 +0000

So I went to vote this morning and was a bit disappointed when I saw there were no "I voted" stickers being handed out. How can I smugly broadcast my civic participation and cast judgement on others without these modern-day scarlet letters?!

I did, however, receive two ballots to fill out*, so I guess that extra voting power makes up for no stickers.

The ballots in my precinct aren't electronic yet, but they are odd to me. It's a scan-tron of sorts. For each candidate there is a broken arrow pointing to their name. Like this:
<-------
You are given a black marker and bridge the arrows of your favored candidates. Like this:
<-------
The arrows of unfavorable candidates remain unfixed and broken.
I know: this is hardly remarkable.

My polling place is in the basement of an old stone and cement Catholic church named for Saint Ita. Saint Ita died when a beetle devoured her side and grew to the size of a pig.
It has a ring to it?
The bells in the tower of Saint Ita have long-been replaced by innocuous-looking loudspeakers, poking out from behind the lace-fine Gothic stonework. Now pre-recorded ringing broadcasts to the neighborhood each hour, much louder than the mechanical, rope-strung bells ringing from the Baptist church two blocks down.
Is the recording of bells from Rome or Ita's native Ireland or of electronic bells hidden in an algorithm?

*Don't worry, I was honest and handed back the extra ballot. I didn't see any winking and nodding going on, so I don't suspect conspiracy although the Republican voting judge was writing furiously on a notepad after I approached the judges table with the extra ballot. Maybe he suddenly thought of lyrics to a song he's been working out in his head. Maybe he was drawing my picture. For some reason, I prefer this last scenario over the other two.

Ga-Ga-Goo-Goo, the Flooks is One Year Old!

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:17:00 +0000

So, I notice it's our one year anniversary. I suggest we throw a party and invite every woman that ever sang a song. What do you guys think we should do?

The thing is...

noreply@blogger.com (Lavender Yum Yum) — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:20:00 +0000

I need you to start blogging more. I'm in Korea. And honestly, the only person I really enjoy talking to here is the person I married. None of the foreigners I work with are funny or terribly bright or interesting. And the Koreans can't understand anything I'm saying (and vice versa). Oh, and I can't get a phone card to work overseas (I've got three defective ones now), further limiting the amount of witty banter in my life.

SO, even though I hardly ever post (sorry. sorry.), I thought you should both know that I'm addicted to CHECKING the blog and to reading your posts.

Ok. Ok? I'm needy. Help.

News of Mizoo

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 01:50:00 +0000

Well, iH, our old friend Matt Singer has made the headlines. Apparently he's the state's pre-eminent blogger, with all sorts of connections in the upper echelons of the Dems. Why am I not surprised?

Oh, and send me an email, I somehow only have your old UM address.

Theory of Everything

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:32:00 +0000

So, before the Lavender one set off for Korea, she asked me if I "believed" in super-string theory (one of the latest developments in theoretical physics, yadda, yadda, already superseded by the emerging M-theory, so I‘m told). I didn't have the necessary language or intellectual constructs to answer the question adequately at the time, but I have recently come across both and so will try to present a somewhat exhaustive explanation of my feelings on the "reality" of any theory, scientific or otherwise, below.

The cogent phrase to keep in mind for the following is this: the model is not the reality. This is a restating of Alfred Korzybski's phrase, "the map is not the territory", or as Robert Anton Wilson puts it, in a more gustatory form, "the menu is not the meal." This may seem obvious enough, but if we consider that no sensation, no stimulus, neither internal nor external, comes to us but through a model or map of reality that we use to order and make sense of the near-infinite amount of stimulus with which we are constantly bombarded, we begin to see the depth and implications of this thought.

First, a little background may be in order, so that we might begin to grok the depth of this. For one, scientists have known for some time now (or at least theorized) that the vast majority off all the “stuff” in the universe is "dark" matter. In fact, all the matter and energy that we can sense, with even our most sensitive and powerful scientific instruments, amounts to only about 5% of all the matter and energy in the universe. This seems an almost comically small base of information to be theorizing about the nature of the universe from.

As for objective reality as we, as mere humans, experience it; while we think we see the world around us as it actually is, we are oblivious to all sorts of stimuli and phenomena occurring all around us, all the time. The entire electro-magnetic spectrum, outside the relatively small band of visible light, is invisible to us. We know that radio waves are passing through the air around us (and us) all the time, and yet, without the aid of a radio, we are totally insensate. The same goes for infra-red, ultraviolet, X, and gamma radiation, not to mention all the sonic vibrations above and below our normal range of hearing and the minute aromas of which we are (blissfully?) unaware, but which seem quite apparent to our four-legged friends. And beyond the merely bio-physical limitations restricting our range of awareness, we also have to contend with psychological phenomena that serve to distort or totally block out much, if not all, of the stimuli that we do perceive. We have all had the experience of selective hearing, where we block out the environmental "noise" around us while focused on some absorbing task. Added to this sort of attentional blocking we humans, highly-developed as we are, are also prone to all sorts of psychological imprinting and conditioning, manifesting as various defense mechanisms and prejudices that can and do greatly distort all of the input we receive from our physical and social environments. Equally important is our neuro-linguistic programming which literally hypnotizes us into seeing things like “trees”, which, in reality have no existence outside of the neuro-linguistic structure itself (there is no such thing as “a tree”, in the generic sense, only this or that particular tree, which is genetically and existentially unique from all other “trees”).

It would be possible, at this point, to bemoan our sorry state as "objective" observers of the universe, and conclude that any "true" knowledge of the universe is precluded by our immense perceptual handicaps. Consider, however, that if we really could perceive every stimuli and phenomena that makes up the universe, we would be functionally "blind". If you were aware of all the ultraviolet and infra-red light along with radio waves and cell phone transmissions, not to mention "dark" matter, it would be exceedingly difficult to drive your car to the grocery store to pick up some bread and ice cream, not to mention carry on a conversation, view a sunset or run a multi-national corporation. And without the abstractions and generalizations of our neuro-linguistic models, scientific knowledge would be impossible, as would be forest management programs. In short, in order to function in the universe it is necessary that we remain unaware of the vast majority of the stimuli we are constantly assaulted with and necessary that we order, sort, and distort the stimuli that we do receive.

The stimuli that we filter out and/or distort, and the ways in which stimuli are distorted, is the function of something I've taken to calling our "reality tunnel," after the great Dr. Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson. Our reality tunnel starts, on the most basic level, with the body/mind apparatus, which, as we have seen, serves to block out the vast majority of all the "stuff" in the universe and allows us to deal with the little bit left over. Layered on top of that are our neuro-linguistic programs that order and shape our perceptions, along with the various psychological screens mentioned above (i.e. a pessimistic attitude, or a fear of rejection). The effect of all these social, psychological and biological blocks and distortions is what I will refer to as our reality tunnel.

To some extent our various reality tunnels agree with one another. This is what we call "consensus reality". We all agree, for instance, that this is a chair that I am sitting in. However, our reality tunnels may also diverge from one another. I may see the chair I am sitting is as a humble and rather shoddy piece of furniture, while someone from another culture may see it as an ostentatious display of wealth. Consensus reality, then, forms only a very small part of “reality,” or perhaps better, of “realities.” These realities correspond to our varying models of the universe but, of course, the model is not the reality.

Because the only thing we can have knowledge of are our individual reality tunnels, no particular reality tunnel can be said to have precedence over any other. In fact, the only statement that we can make regarding the “truth” of any particular reality tunnel is that it is not “the truth”, that is, it is not reality. We are reminded here of Einstein’s thought experiments that led ultimately to the theory of special relativity. These experiments showed that the concepts of physics such as distance and motion are dependent upon the perspective from which one is observing them. Right now I am sitting practically motionless in front of my computer, spinning around the earth’s axis at thousands of miles an hour, and/or hurtling through vast reaches of space at near light speed, all depending upon which perspective one views the motion of my body from. As to whether my body is “really” sitting still or traveling at mind-numbing speed, science can only answer “both and neither.” There is no privileged perspective on reality, and so all perspectives must be granted equal validity.

This thought should give us pause to reflect. We have spoken of “consensus reality” above, but even the most widely held of consensus views cannot be given precedence over divergent views, even if held only by one person. Everyone around me may claim that what I am sitting in is a chair of the standard variety, but if I persist in claiming that it is in fact a terrifying dragon with sixteen wings and seven heads, there is no way to “objectively” determine which view is “real”. A physicist, of course, would claim that, whether dragon or chair, it is almost entirely empty space. All of these views are epistemologically equal in that they are all created by models of reality and, once again, the model is not the reality. In answer to the question of what I am “really” seated on, a chair or a dragon or empty space, the only honest reply is, “all of them and none of them.”

Now, this may all seem a little far-fetched to some. Is there really no objective way of knowing what it is I’m sitting on, a chair or a dragon or just empty space? No, there is not. The reason is that our answer will depend on what model of reality we are referring to in gathering information about the object in question. If we see a chair, we are most likely referring to a standard human nervous system model, which, as we have seen, blocks out far more information than it gathers. Tweak that model just a little though, adding some serotonin here and blocking some acetylcholine receptors there, and the resulting view of reality can change drastically. A chair, for instance, becomes a dragon. Or perhaps we forsake the human nervous system model altogether, tweaked or otherwise, in favor of the scientific model, in which case we “see,” with the assistance of super-sensitive analytic equipment and some high-level math, that the chair is in fact almost nothing but empty space, perhaps with a few one dimensional vibrating strings zooming about inside it’s boundaries.

This is why Korzybski felt the word “is” to be the biggest stumbling block in our linguistic conceptual apparatus. Whenever we say something “is” something (“that basketball is orange”), we lie by omission. We know, for instance, that the basketball is not, in fact orange, but is actually blue. It appears orange to us because the ball reflects orange light (or rather, a wavelength of light that our brains present to us as orange) and absorbs blue light. We also know that a color-blind person, or someone with cerebral damage to certain parts of the brain, sees the ball as a different color than we do, yet their perceptions have just as much “validity” as ours. What we should say is, “that basketball appears orange to me at this time,” or, “that object on which you are sitting appears to me, at present, to be a chair.”

And yet, while we cannot say what it is that I am “really” sitting on, chair or dragon or empty space, we do know that there is something there, some source of stimulus, even if we can’t say “objectively” what it is. There must be some reality, therefore, that underlies our personal realities, some ultimate reality which is the source of all the stimulus that we build into our discrete realities by way of our various models. There is an objective reality, but we can only know about it subjectively.

But might we not experience this greater reality directly, without the intermediary distortion and blocking of our biological and psychological models? The answer, I think, is yes, and that many women and men from all over the world have, in fact, had this experience. However, because the experience of this ultimate reality takes place outside of all reality tunnels, there is, by definition, no way of having knowledge of it, since knowledge is a product of the sorting and ordering of stimuli that is the work of the models that have been left behind. Ultimate Reality cannot be known, therefore, only experienced. However, even saying that this ultimate reality can be experienced may be misleading, since perception requires the selective blocking of certain stimuli which is incompatible with the “experience” of ultimate reality, and who can imagine an experience without perception? This is no doubt the source of the highly metaphoric and ambiguous language used by the mystics, saints, and sages of all times, and why many talk of being, becoming, or being filled by God, or Godhead, rather than perceiving it (God, in this case, being just another name for the ultimate reality that lies behind our individual realities). Perhaps we should say that one can not know or experience reality, but only be it.

But what about science? Doesn’t science offer us an objective view of the cosmos, or at least the 5% of it that we can sense? If something can be scientifically proven, can it not be said to be more real than an individual’s skewed perceptions? No. Science is not objective, firstly for the simple fact that it is not possible to test all conceivable hypotheses. Because of time and resource limitations, not to mention sheer impossibility, as regards dark matter for example, science must necessarily limit its investigations to testing those hypotheses, which seem plausible to the scientist at the time. Hypotheses are subjectively chosen, in other words. A truly objective science would have to give equal weight to all hypotheses, until all could be tested and either verified or disproven. Only then, after testing all conceivable hypotheses, could an objective science give a truly objective answer .

For instance, I have a hypothesis that all matter is in fact composed of very small fairies who fly about, much like the particles of conventional physical theory, and the flapping of whose wings gives objects the appearance of solid form. Oh yes, and these fairies are smaller than anything yet discovered in physics, in fact they compose the very strings of string theory. Now what does our supposedly objective scientist have to say about my hypothesis? That it is ridiculous? That it is a piece of raving lunacy and that I would do better to devote my time to making mud pies than to theorizing about the nature of the universe? Of course not, for she is an objective woman, our scientist, and simply informs me that my hypothesis is very interesting but there is, at present, no way of testing any part of it and so a hypothesis it must remain. Not proven, but not disproven either, and so still a possibility. A science (like our actually existing science) that pretends to give a definitive answer before all the hypotheses have been duly tested cannot be said to be in any way objective. From the minute that the scientist forms her hypothesis, she is relying on a huge mass of unstated social biases, neuro-linguistic programming, and physical and conceptual limitations that make the whole endeavor hopelessly subjective from the very beginning. And if the science is subjective in the beginning, can it really be said to be objective in the end?

To demonstrate: math is widely considered to be the most objective of sciences. “2 + 2 = 4” is practically synonymous with undeniable truth. It has been shown, however, that even the most basic of our mathematical principals are based on nothing but human subjectivity. The story of Euclid’s fifth postulate is instructive.

As we should all know, the Greek Euclid was the first person (the first that we know of, anyway) to create a systematic and logical system of geometry. He based his geometry on five postulates or axioms. The first four were pretty straight forward, “between any two points there exists one line connecting them,” stuff like that, that just seems too obvious to second guess. His fifth postulate, however, was quite a bit more wordy and complicated, something about converging lines and the angle of incidence being less than ninety degrees. Just looking at the five postulates, the fifth one seems really out of place. Euclid wasn’t too pleased with it. He tried to get rid of it by proving it as a proposition based on the other four axioms, but no dice, it couldn’t be done. He wanted like anything to just get rid of it somehow, problem was, he couldn’t prove more than 28 propositions without assuming it. It seemed right to him, but somehow it seemed wrong too.

The fifth postulate came to be known as the “parallel postulate” because rephrased, what it says is this; given a line l and a point A not on that line, there exists one line through A that is parallel to l (draw it out, it’ll make sense). It continued to seem wrong to mathematicians long after Euclid was returned to the dust from whence he sprang, and many a budding mathematician whiled away countless hours of their youth working on the mysterious fifth postulate. Most of them grew out of it eventually and went on to more productive areas of math, and for more than a millennia, no one got any farther on the problem than Euclid did. Then a couple of mathematicians thought they’d try to show the necessity of the fifth postulate by showing that assuming something else would lead to insoluble contradictions in the resulting geometric system. One guy assumed that there were an infinite number of lines through A that were parallel to l, somebody else assumed that there weren’t any parallel lines. The thing was they found that the resulting mathematics, using the “nonsensical” alternate fifth postulates, worked out just as well as Euclid’s geometry. This was puzzling.

Eventually, it was discovered that the new “non-Euclidean” geometries were simply descriptions of geometry in “non-flat” space. For instance, the geometry that assumed an infinite number of parallel lines was describing geometry in hyperbolic space, that is, if space is shaped like a hyperbola rather than a flat plane. The geometry that assumed no parallel lines described geometry on a sphere. This was interesting enough in itself, while still remaining in the realm of mathematical abstraction, but then Einstein went and used Riemann’s non-Euclidean geometry in his groundbreaking theory of physical reality, and showed that it was necessary for describing the universe. Robert Anton Wilson has a phrase for this kind of thing. It begins with “mind” and ends with a four-letter explitive starting with “f”.

So, does that mean that Riemann’s geometry is right and Euclid’s is wrong? No, it means that they each describe reality from a particular perspective. Our universe is neither Euclidean nor non-Euclidean, so neither are “right” or “wrong,” in the usual sense, rather, they each present us with a different aspect of some larger, more fundamental truth, of which both are but particular expressions (the particulars of that expression depending on the fundamental axioms upon which the system is founded).

And the thing about axioms is that they are, by definition, unproven (and therefore, at least possibly, subjective). Perhaps it is the case that we first discovered Euclidean geometry not because it is somehow more fundamentally “real,” but because of some idiosyncrasy of our bio-physical or neuro-linguistic apparatus. Maybe it was because Euclid worked out his theorems on a flat surface and not a hyperbolic one. Either way, it seems likely that we first discovered Euclidean geometry because our models of the universe somehow predisposed us to. But of course, the model is not the reality.

Returning now to the “hard” sciences, we see additionally that science experiments do not yield theories or explanations, only data, and it is then up to the scientist to formulate a model of some sort to explain all, or most, of the data. However, even if the model does explain all the data, that does not necessarily mean that it is the “real” explanation of reality, only that it seems to explain all the data we know about at this time, and that we haven't devised any other model that explains the data as well or better. Again, formation of the model to fit the reality is a totally subjective endeavor, dependent largely upon what the scientist thinks is likely.

The final nail in the coffin of “objective” science comes from Kurt Gödel, whose eponymous theorem proved that no logical system can be both complete and non-contradictory. That is, if a logical system describes all that it purports to describe, it will necessarily contain a contradiction (for instance, a mathematical system cannot prove the axioms upon which it is founded), or, on the other hand, if the logical system is free from contradictions, it is necessarily incomplete, having as it were, some dark areas which the system cannot “see.” This is the case for what is called “neutral geometry,” which is basically Euclid without the fifth postulate. You can solve a number of geometric problems with neutral geometry, but there are many more that you can’t solve. For instance, we all know that the sum of the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry, but neutral geometry isn’t able to give an answer one way or the other. To quote Wikipedia:

Absolute geometry is an example of an incomplete postulational system. Consider the statement "The sum of the angles in every triangle is equal to two right angles". This is not provable in absolute geometry, because if it was, it would be true in hyperbolic geometry, and the sum of the angles in a hyperbolic triangle is less than two right angles. However, the negation of the statement, that there exists a triangle whose angles don't add up to two right angles, is not provable either, because if it was, it would be provable in Euclidean geometry, and the sum of the angles in Euclidean geometry is always two right angles. Therefore this proposition is undecidable in absolute geometry.

Science, of course, works through the medium of logical systems and therefore all supposedly comprehensive scientific theories, such as the physicists’ coveted “theory of everything” (or T.O.E.), must fall prey to Gödel’s theorem (if everything is, in fact, composed of one-dimensional vibrating strings, what are those made out of and where did they come from?). It is futile, therefore, to look to science to provide us with any ultimate answers. It is probable, I think, that if physicists are successful in their hunt for the elusive T.O.E., that it will only be a matter of time before a competing T.O.E. arrives on the scene, like Non-Euclidean geometry, to throw a monkey wrench in the whole works again. At that point, of course, we have to start looking for a new T.O.E. that can explain how there can be more than one T.O.E. And round and round we go…

Reality, however, Ultimate Reality, that which lies behind all of our theorizing and conceptualizing, that source of all stimuli which our bodies and minds literally shape around us into our perceived “realities”, is neither incomplete nor contradictory. It is what Rene Guenon terms the “metaphysical infinite”, and our reality tunnels are far too constrained and finite to ever contain it. We may be able to experience It (or be It), but we can never conceptualize It, never know It. All our perceptions are the result of our particular reality tunnels, our models for organizing and interacting with the universe, and the model is not the reality .

Break

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:33:00 +0000

If sacred land we tread with hearts
uncluttered by cares that fill our days,
and if we turn with all our skill and arts
and vow to mend our sinful ways,
and if we turn our love on all that we see
and hate not the bad and loving still
those that do harm us, then surely we'll be
children of God, beset by no ill.
For how can it be that blood is shed still,
when all these long centuries, lo, it's been shed?
Has it not been enough, have we not had our fill?
Will we not stop to count the numberless dead?

Mother says only love can heal this ache,
we must love and love, till our hardened hearts break.

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:33:00 +0000

If it wasn't for dissapointment...

noreply@blogger.com (iHabitus) — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:18:00 +0000

Today saw the end of my most recent experiment (aka: work-diversion). The experiment's failure to produce the desired results was another blow to the idea of a magical and meaningful universe. (Actually, the experiment might have been successful, but my ability to interperet anything magical or meaningful failed.)

For four (4) weeks I have logged the messages that my TI-30X Solar calculator displayed to me each morning. It seems that, overnight, when the building lights in my office were turned off, the calculator would abandon it's default zero and take on new and indecipherable messages in its monochromatic LED display. For example:

July 27th, 2006:
Functions activated by the TI-30X: M1, 2ND, DEG
Display Text: nF(<-upside down F)110811(<-these 2 ones appeared closer together as the right and left walls of a zero digit).8n0

Some days the calculator would start the day blank as if to pause. The last three days of the test the calculator began the day with zero, so I assume that whatever it was trying to tell me has concluded.

Anyway, I can decipher no patterns from these 20 days of text and, as I said before, fear that this says more about me than my calculator. I poured over my notes this weekend and thought I might come close to Truth, but alas it isn't so.

somthing unpolished and spontaneous whilst working

noreply@blogger.com (iHabitus) — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:41:00 +0000

Action Figure

and maybe there's more to memory than these
stories I repeat to myself, endlessly

cataloging anecdote and incidence as if there's
something I might cull from this life

so far. I cross streets all the time looking down
and recall walking barefoot across a hot

sticky stretch of asphalt at thirteen. That was
the day I sold my He-Man action figures

to an old man at the garage sale. I am nothing
at the crosswalk but that story and a pair of eyes

glued to the reflective white strip leading me
onward; walking from wherever.

A Split in the Water

noreply@blogger.com (iHabitus) — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:41:00 +0000

Your son, beneath, gasps;
lets out something like
Your name but
forgets. Bones crack.
Lights from town reflect off clouds.

The Toyota stands there
a diver caught mid-dive, just beginning to crack
the water surface.

Your son coughs
again and opens his white eyes.

His empty child’s gaze is spread out
among the roadside crab grass.

You slip off his shoes,
thinking you ought to.

The last slow sigh
from the engine winds down, sloughs off sound
as if sinking between that split in the water.

And you?

noreply@blogger.com (Lavender Yum Yum) — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:48:00 +0000

Right, so I'm living in Korea now. So far I'm liking most things-- the rain, the busy streets, the way a four year old ran up to me on the subway and gave me a lemon donut. The only disappointment thus far has been our apartment, which is about the size of hollowed watermelon.

I'm trying to do some writing about this experience, but it's proven to be pretty difficult. I mean, who wants to hear about someone else's travels? It's so fucking boring. I can't bear to read that kind of writing myself, "Blah, blah, we saw so many AMAZING things and it was, like, totally amazing. And then we saw this poor person on the street and I realized that, like, there is so much suffering in the world. And then I saw a lotus flower... etc. etc." So I'm trying to find someway to write about Korea that doesn't make ME want to fall asleep. And it's really hard. Even though I love living here and many things are, like, totally amazing to me. So, we'll see. Any ideas for a hip book about Korea that the world is dying to read?

Teaching is going well, except that I teach too many classes. I teach a wide range of ages and levels, so I keep busy with planning. So far I really like the youngest kids (about 6?) and the oldest ones (13) but I'm having a harder time bonding with those pesky 10-year-olds, who have lost their cuteness but haven't developed very interesting personalities yet.

Ok, that's it for now. Hope you are both well.

Four Zen Jokes

noreply@blogger.com (Diptherio) — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:41:00 +0000

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

A: It was just crossing the road.

redux:
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

A: Road and chicken are one, therefore crossing is impossible.

redux-redux:
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?

A: I once knew a man who weighed over 300 pounds.

moving on:
Q: What did the Zen Buddhist child say when he was trying to impress his mother?

A: "Look ma, no mind!"

Still here, alive, etc...

noreply@blogger.com (iHabitus) — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:41:00 +0000

Sorry I haven't posted or commented lately. LOTS of stuff going on right now. I promise to elaborate more later.

It's always good to read from your posts. Not to be too sentimental or too brief, but I miss you both.

Here are some little flowers I drew with MS paint while bored of my job. Give them names or don't, but be sure to enjoy the colors that my 16-bit palette had to offer.