Today I focused on updating an old article at earthpages.ca about a Hindu school of philosophy called Samkhya. My update turned toward a partial exposition of my thoughts about how insight and intuition might somehow be integrated with emerging ideas in physics, especially those concerning the relativity of space and time.
One thing absent in the update is the old theological notion that God knows the past and future, and accordingly gives us insight through some kind of direct revelation (i.e. not from the past or future, per se, but from the mind of God). I think this is entirely possible. But today I just emphasized the possibility of intuitive connections through space-time. My entry was already getting complicated enough and I didn’t want to make it worse!
I’ve been blogging about this topic throughout earthpages for at least a decade. But most people, imo, are too constrained by their particular religious or secular world views to really give it much thought. To them, it’s just irrelevant theorizing. Fair enough. This is probably another one of those “we have to get there” issues that humanity won’t really care about for at least another century. But I’m interested now. So I write about it. After all, someone has to be first. But then again, if space-time is somewhat omnidirectional, would that person really be first? :)
A little late today. These were gathered this morning but it was laundry day at home, so just getting time to post my favs now.
I like this first one because it reminds me of an ancient Greek play where all the women go on strike in protest of their men going to war, if I remember right.
This one is not scintillating but it does provide good coverage, clearing up some common misperceptions about Catholicism.
No kidding…
A scary thought. Lets hope it’s more hype than fact. One thing no one would consider—all paper ballots and going back to counting votes manually:
I did my doctorate in psychology and religion, so this story is of special interest to me. I think it’s done quite well. Especially as you read through toward the end.
It’s a crap shoot, I guess:
A lot of folks blame Christianity for many social ills. But this article suggests that Christianity has within it the seeds of redemption… not only spiritual but also social.
Pretty self explanatory. Is natural always better? This article asks:
A new twist on the old “monkey at a typewriter eventually coming up with Shakespeare…” if they type for all eternity, that is:
Here’s the song the above points to. I think it sounds like XTC before morphing into the Beatles. But then, XTC did sort of copy the Beatles style at times. Bottom line… people are still better musicians than machines.
The above tweet points to some obvious cases where men are victims of sexism. But discrimination occurs on many levels, in many different ways. Men can perpetuate sexism against men, just as women can perpetuate sexism against women. Sexism isn’t only about one gender disrespecting and oppressing another. And what about “pretty” people discriminating against the “ugly.” Or that thin against the obese? The tall against the short? The “normal” against the “weird”?
The unfortunate dynamic of discrimination occurs because, well, people are impressionable. So a situation often arises where we are sort of brainwashed, I guess, into believing in things and acting in certain ways that are not based in reality nor good for humanity as a whole.
Another routinely overlooked example of believing in things that may not be good for us, I would suggest, is found in some of the darker corners of psychiatry. Some people abuse psychiatric drugs, or perhaps their doctors are incompetent and abusive in prescribing drugs when they shouldn’t be.
Instead of dealing with all the causes of depression, for example, some take pills because that seems to help. I am not sure how much of that help is due to the well documented placebo effect and how much is actual. But the problem with taking pills that affect your brain is that, over time, the brain will likely try to compensate for whatever is altering its systems.
The brain is not a fixed, metal machine but a living organ. So when strange chemicals enter into its everyday workings, it grows new receptors or makes other changes to try to compensate. Now, down the line, if someone wants to go off their pills, they may find that their brain has actually changed. And whatever those pills were once “fixing” may now be even worse because the brain changes (as a result of taking the pills) have made the brain more sensitive to whatever was contributing to the issue in the first place.
Doctors realize this. So what do they do? Many prescribe a new set of pills to fix the new problem. They do this knowing that over time, even more biochemical issues will likely arise. So it’s sort of playing “patch up” the problem, knowing that in doing so there’s a high probability that they will be contributing to a whole new set of problems. But it’s no game. It’s your brain.
This may seem like a bit of a diversion from the tweet about sexism, but I think it’s a good example where people believe in something that in the long run may not be good for them. I write about scientism a fair amount at earthpages. I guess some think I’m just a nut with my eyes closed to the wonders of science. But in reality, not all science is pure. In fact, much of it is politically, ideologically and economically driven. But that’s a topic for another day!
8,000 people were displaced from their homes to make room for a new ET seeking dish in China. Given China’s track record with forcibly removing people for the Beijing Olympics, one can only wonder about the reliability of official reports saying the common people will be justly compensated.
I’m trying out a new web browser extension that allows you to highlight text and then post a link to the highlight. So hopefully the above link will take you right to the highlighted material in the original story. Here’s the original tweet:
Every morning I go through the news in specific categories. I tweet stories that I feel are important because they are often overlooked on the front page. I often react to the stories and would like to comment. But I don’t always have time. So today I thought I’d list some of the top tweets. There are more, listed at right column.
Was it just me or was Clinton’s head larger than Trump’s on the CNN cameras? It almost seemed as if CNN corrected the difference in subsequent internet stories about the debate, making the two candidates’ heads look the same size, with the background text all nicely lined up.
But in the actual televised debate, I’m not so sure.
Take a look at the above screenshot from a post-debate CNN stream, in which various commentators talk about and show clips from the debate.
Hillary’s circle is clearly larger than Donald’s.
Is this fair? Or was it a case of subtly making Trump look “alone at the microphone” as Neil Young once put it.
Again, I can’t say for certain but at the beginning, especially, I felt that Clinton’s head was bigger. There were times when she loomed large on the TV screen while Trump seemed to hang like a lonely puppet dangling from strings.
CNN commentators analyzed every detail… except for this—surprising, considering how sharp those folks usually are.
What do you think? Was Hillary’s head bigger on screen? Or did they balance out over time?
I'm exploring life in the City of Joy. And I haven't been happier. This is a subtle yet one of my favorite outlets of random thoughts. Hope you like exploring this too!
Earthpages.ca
:: one dot at a time ::
Earthpages.org
Earthpages.org