Where are we, where are we going, and how?
‘I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no “brief candle” for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.’ George Bernard Shaw.
The following snippets of youtube videos are inspired by an initiative called “Awakening The Dreamer” which involves a half-day seminar that uses these video and more to step through where we are, how we got here, where we want to go, and how we can move toward that goal. taking groups through these questions. I attended the seminar and was impressed with how succinctly these clips summed up the present human predicament that I had been researching last year. Their conclusions, the same conclusions as mine, combine sustainable living, social justice and spiritual fulfillment, and in the end come down to one thing: INDIVIDUAL’S MAKING CHANGES LOCALLY, WHICH ADD UP TO GLOBAL CHANGE. Their videos inspired me to put this post together, so that the message can get out there as fast as possible. You may have seen some of these already, but if you haven’t seen any of them then this sequence of clips will take about one hour… something to do over the (what in Australia is going to be quite a rainy) Easter long-weekend. Enjoy!
Where are we?
A world divided into the “haves” and “havenots” – where the “havenots”, almost half the world, don’t have a place to shit, and a growing number of the “haves” are depressed, dissatisfied with the fulfillment material consumption and acquisition brings, and more and more are becoming mentally ill and committing suicide.
A miniature earth:
It’s just not fair:
But this is not an accident. Inequality is designed into the system. That’s why we in the western world can buy lots of things for cheap, can earn more than we spend and save money to buy houses or travel.
While apologists of global capitalism still adamantly state that the capitalist model is the best path to eradicate poverty; economist and policy director Andrew Simms clearly proves this “trickle-down” theory nothing but a myth. Simms shows that on our current trajectory it would take 15 planets’ worth of earth’s biocapacity to reduce poverty to a state where the poorest receive $3 per day. In other words ‘we will have made Earth uninhabitable long before poverty is eradicated.’[1]
The “developing” countries are in fact a ‘transmission belt’ with value (for example raw materials) forwarded to the ‘developed” nations such that ‘the total arrangement is largely in the interests of the middle class.’[2] It seems that poverty is ‘no longer a side effect, but an intended product of globalization’ with its continuation ‘seen as beneficial for the middle class’ likely to cause a resistance to ‘change and redistribution.’[3]
It seems clear that while markets ‘won’t do the job by themselves’, and governments are ‘often cruelly short-sighted’, for the IPE structure shift to a sustainable model it will ‘be a choice, a choice of a global society that thinks ahead and acts in unaccustomed harmony.’[4] A shift in values from capital-accumulation to social justice and environmental responsibility is likely to result from a widespread realisation that continuing on our current trajectory will, without a doubt, end with devastating calamity. It seems that only a well-informed global population, with leaders and citizens of developed and developing nations acting out of “enlightened self-interest” and for ‘the wellbeing of their children and children’s children’, will allow the IPE structure to enter a sustainable paradigm. [5]
350.org:
How did we get here?
Dawn of human conscious, collective learning, development of separate identities, and the industrial revolution. Our human journey:
The story of stuff, by Annie Leonard:
Where do we want to go?
Well, I know I don’t want humanity to go extinct. Nor do I want future generations of humans and animals to live on a toxic planet as a consequence of the chemicals we use to support our consumption and acquisition…
What alternatives do we have? We need A NEW DREAM… one that is environmentally sustainable, socially just and spiritually fulfilling. (See the Awakening The Dreamer initiative).
The new dream begins with the realisation that “success” is really about the amount of happiness in your life – not the amount of money in a bank account. People are starting to value creativity over capital, experience over “things”, and time over consumption and accumulation. Is there any better feeling than the one felt when you make another person happy?
The new dream is based on an identity that transcends our individual self, appreciating our connectedness to all people, to all life, to our land, and our universe. Our new dream does not fear change, it embraces the transitivity of everything that exists, seeing everything as a process. Life will never be static. Reality is dynamic, and as humans we each have a part to play in creating a sustainable and peaceful planet for ourselves and future generations.
How are we going to get there?
Invest in Cradle to Cradle design – turning waste into food:
Invest in “Social Business”:
A “Global Mindshift”
Hold our governments accountable to the Millennium Development Goals:
Other exciting ideas and initiatives: www.goworldlink.org/
Why should we care?
Our planet is alive. We have adapted to live as part of her ecosystem, if we destroy this for ourselves, we have no where else to go:
Her resources are limited, our needs are expanding and infinite:
Whatever we do to our web, we do to ourselves:
The world is not made up of me and “the other”:
Listen to the wombat – “all is one”:
Where should we to start?
Reflect on our world-view and question our assumptions.
Rethink our values and communicate them with others.
Ask ourselves: what is my role in making the world a better place?
Be the change: know that one person can make a big difference:
And then don’t hesitate, make plans and put them into action!
“FOUR YEARS. GO.” A campaign to shift humanity onto a sustainable, just, and fulfilling path … by 14 February 2014.
Want some ideas about what you individually can do, check out this page on the Awakening The Dreamer website
Start by sharing this message – let’s change the world in the next four years!
References:
[1] Andrew Simms, ‘Trickle-Down Myth’, New Scientist (18 Oct 2008). p. 49. Andrew Simms is the policy director of the New Economics Foundation in London. In this article Simms steps through the mathematics to show the system is designed such that for the poor to get ‘slightly less poor, the rich have to get very much richer’. This means it would take ‘around $166 worth of global growth to generate $1 extra for people living on below $1 a day’.
[2] Ibid. p. 84.
[3] The Hague Institute of Social Studies, Collateral Dammage or Calculted Default? The Millennium Development Goals and the Politics of Globalisation, 2003. p. 35.
[4] Jeffrey Sachs, Common Wealth : Economics for a Crowded Planet (London: Allen Lane, 2008). p. 81.
[5] Ibid. p. 5.
Share this article
To do, or not to do? Avoiding regret.
When making a decision I ask myself :
1. Will I regret doing it?
If I answer “yes”, I don’t do it. (Reason being, if I am pretty sure I’m going to regret something I think it would be pretty silly to disregard that intuition.)
If the answer is “maybe” or “no” I ask myself:
2. Will I regret not doing it?
Now if I answer “yes” then I do it. (For the same reason as above.)
Now the selection criteria gets a little more confusing:
If the answer to both questions is “maybe” then I do it. (Reason being I think it better to regret something you did, the regret something you didn’t do.)
If the answer to question 2 is “no” and the the answer to the question 1 is “maybe” then I don’t it. (If I know I’m not going to regret not doing it, then it’s not worth the chance of regretting doing it.)
If the answer to question 2 is “maybe” and the answer to the question 1 is “no” then I do it. (If I know I’m not going to regret doing it, then it’s not worth the chance of regretting not doing it.)
If the answer to both questions is “no” then I will have a cold shower. (I need to wake up – if the consequences are so trivial I should have done it already.)
Hmmm I wonder if my new little criteria makes sense to anyone other than me…?
And I guess it doesn’t always apply – especially if you tend to do before you think, eg shaving my head.. that wasn’t exactly a planned out decision but I didn’t regret it (at least not after the first day or two)… That being said I have no plans to do it again any time soon.
Share this article
How to create a world war
Among my Internet surfing I came across a “creationist” website – the belief that the world is around 6000 years old – a figure derived from tracing back the genealogy in the bible from Jesus to Adam, and the seven-day creation. This belief is growing so much that more than 40% of Americans believe this and do not believe in evolution!
Obviously this creation story clashes with the Story of the Universe I am presenting in my Big History Blog Series. I think it is always important to read other views with the most open mind you can possibly have, and I have tried, but serious – this is pretty destructive stuff…
This website was advertising a book called:
WAR OF THE WORLDVIEWS
“What do aliens, dinosaurs and gay marriage have in common?
They are all part of the culture war—a war between two worldviews…
How are we to respond when we hear of the latest “argument” for evolution? How can we prepare our children to face the evolutionary indoctrination of our public schools and universities? What are we to make of “Christian” organizations who teach the big bang and millions of years? How can we build a truly biblical worldview?
In this powerful book, you will find ammunition for the war: answers to some of the most common arguments for evolution, analyses of Christian compromise and a call for a return to true biblical authority.”
This is a quote from a corresponding article:
“This story of origins is entirely fiction. But sadly, many people claim to believe the big bang model. It is particularly distressing that many professing Christians have been taken in by the big bang, perhaps without realizing its atheistic underpinnings. They have chosen to reinterpret the plain teachings of Scripture in an attempt to make it mesh with secular beliefs about origins.
There are several reasons why we cannot just add the big bang to the Bible. Ultimately, the big bang is a secular story of origins. When first proposed, it was an attempt to explain how the universe could have been created without God. Really, it is an alternative to the Bible; so it makes no sense to try to “add” it to the Bible. Let us examine some of the profound differences between the Bible and the secular big bang view of origins.
The Bible teaches that God created the universe in six days ( Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11). It is clear from the context in Genesis that these were days in the ordinary sense (i.e., 24-hour days) since they are bounded by evening and morning and occur in an ordered list (second day, third day, etc.). Conversely, the big bang teaches the universe has evolved over billions of years.
The Bible says that Earth was created before the stars and that trees were created before the sun.1 However, the big bang view teaches the exact opposite. The Bible tells us that the earth was created as a paradise; the secular model teaches it was created as a molten blob. The big bang and the Bible certainly do not agree about the past.
Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.”2 But the Bible teaches that the world will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching.
See the full article here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-the-big-bang-fit
Some thoughts:
First of all I have to ask: wasn’t the book of Genesis written by Jews? And don’t Jews believe the Genesis story is MYTH? So what are these Christians thinking when they decide to interpret is as LITERAL???
Secondly, referring to the parts of the quote I have highlighted in red, this article appears to be highly manipulative propaganda. It appeals to people’s fear of death and offers a reward of eternal life – you have a choice: be a part of a universe that might one day, in billions of years, cease to exist; or be a Christian and live forever. But what of this choice is based on anything real?
If we are part of a universe that might one day cease to exist, maybe we should accept it and stop fearing it. Maybe it’s a good thing? Life is pretty good, but to live forever in the same consciousness would get pretty mundane. Especially if there this eternal life was somewhere that everything was perfect… urgh! Nope – I think “God” made a pretty good world with this play of opposing forces – it’ keeps life interesting. Change is great! Maybe we should enjoy the billions years this universe has left to offer. Now we are in a stage of expansion, one day the universe may contract and billions of years later start to expand again… who knows! It’s a pretty exciting idea, and at least it’s a real possibility as opposed to a fairytale told to make us feel good and turn our consciousness from creative and peaceful to one that is conforming and destructive …
Thirdly, this article polarizes non-believers and falsifies who they are and their motives. Maybe Christians who believe in evolution and not creationism are NOT “compromising” their religion – isn’t it possible that they are THINKING FOR THEMSELVES? Isn’t it possible that they are READING THE BIBLE IN THE CONTEXT THAT IT WAS WRITTEN? Isn’t it possible that “GOD” WANTED THE BIBLE TO CONTAIN MYTH, WHICH IS WHY GENESIS IS A MYTH???
I really cannot understand how people can abuse a historical book, cherry pick and take parts out of context, and use it to hate certain groups of society, to deny the dinosaurs, polarize worldview rather than look for the lessons that can be learned from each other, increasing tensions, and calling for war. Yep – that’s a great way to create a world war. Good one guys.
Share this article
Big History Blog Series: Chapter 1 – The Big Bang
Once upon a time, in the land of Quantum Nothingness, there was a BIG BANG and an infinitesimally small something started to expand, possibly faster than the speed of light.
For some unknown but much talked about reason, matter in the form of quarks (the basic building blocks of protons and electrons) and dark matter (we don’t actually know what this is) appeared, and with it came two forces: gravity (that draws everything together) and electromagnetism (that draws opposites together and pushes the similar apart). At first this combination caused the quarks to annihilate themselves – turning into pure energy. It was from this hot chaotic mixture of quarks, energy, and electromagnetic and gravitational forces, came positive charged protons and negative charged electrons.
As the universe expanded it cooled and the protons and electrons joined to create the first atoms – Hydrogen atoms (made up of one proton and one electron) and Helium atoms (two protons and two electrons). These were electrically neutral and so they were no longer affected by electromagnetic radiation.
Cosmologists estimate the beginning of the expanding singularity, when measured in our earth-centric concept of time, to have occurred around 13.7 billion years ago. Since this time our universe has grown to contain 100 billion galaxies, which contains (taking a conservative number of 100 billion stars per galaxy) approximately 10 sextillion stars (10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) – that’s more stars than grains of sand on earth. Traveling at the speed of light it would take 20 years to travel to our sun and 5 million-years to travel to the nearest star. Ok, you get the picture, our universe is huge! How we got from the first appearance of matter and energy, to this massive universe, will be the subject of chapter 2. For now let’s return to the Big Bang.
It seems it is at this point of singularity that we discover “the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything”. That would be NUMBER 42. What was the question again? (You’ve seen Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy haven’t you?) What does the number 42 that mean??? Hmmm… absolutely nothing…?
For me, the “Ultimate Question” is: how the heck did something come from nothing? What caused “the big bang” to occur? And WHY? Scientists are yet to answer these questions.
Ok, so if we do not how or why the big bang occurred, then how do we know it actually happened?
1. Because we know our universe is expanding. Astronomers observe and measure other galaxies moving away from us – detecting it with the “absorption line” of frequencies in a light spectra. This is called a Red Shift (red light shows parts of the galaxy moving away while blue light shows objects moving closer to us.)
2. You can still actually see the CBR energy released about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Turn on an old television set – the static you see is “CBR” – Cosmic Background Radiation.
3. The universe is still largely Hydrogen and Helium (99% of all atomic atoms); looking into the universe stars appear “younger”; also nothing seems to be older than around 13 billion years. (It is interesting to note that atomic matter is only a small slice of the universe – the rest of it is dark matter and dark energy.)
If something is getting bigger it must have previously been smaller, right? That’s the key logic behind the Big Bang. Winding back time we imagine our universe contracting back down to an infinitesimally small point of singularity.
Did something exist before this point of singularity? Maybe.
Does something exist outside all that we know exists? Maybe.
Maybe the universe we experience is version of “multiverse” – with all possibilities existing in universes sitting side by side.
Maybe Big Bangs are happening all the time – creating new universes in a space we will never know.
Maybe our universe is like a computer game programmed from inside another universe. Maybe a group of such programmers are competing to see whose universe self-destructs first. Maybe there’s just one programmer to whom some people call “God”.
Maybe the universe is “God”, continually going through a process of expansion and contraction – “God” breathing in, and “God” breathing out, with each breath taking billions or trillions of years.
We may speculate as much as we like, I do not believe I shall ever know these answers. Does that matter? Not to me. I would rather focus on what we do know. What do we know? We know that we are inside a beautiful expanding universe. We know we are a part of a magnificent process of increasing complexity, and the fact that we are intelligent enough to be aware of it, to observe it and discuss it, puts us in (if I do say so myself) the most exciting place any human has ever been.
An extra little interesting note on the Big Bang:
Attempts to observe the early stages of the big bang are occurring at The Hadron Collider on the border of France and Switzerland and also at Fermilab in Illinois – using “Accelerators” to make sub-atomic particles move at close to the speed of light, and smash together… what will this reveal? We have to wait and see.
References:
David Christian, This Fleeting World: A short history of humanity, Berkshire Publishing Group (Massachusetts 2008), pp. xx-xxi.
Picture credits:
The Birth of the Universe, The Kingfisher Young People’s Book of Space, TIME Graphic by Ed Gabel.
Share this article
Big History Blog Series: Introduction – Our Story
I wish to share with you a story: The Story of the Universe. My Story. Your Story. A True Story – well as true as true can be. Our Story has gone through many filters: of limited human knowledge developed through our limited human senses, mental constructions, and even our “impressive” technologies. Our Story, as I tell it, will be filtered through my personal perspectives, which have developed through my own past experiences, my limited education, and the general time pressures I face in writing such a narrative.
But this story, I believe, is an important one.
All societies throughout history have had a story of origins – generally using myth – to give a sense of who we are, where we have come from, and where we are going. Science and logical deduction has now replaced myth in our mental constructs, and so our story of origins must also be a scientific one.
The Story of Our Universe is an important story because it gives us a sense of identity that is not based on difference – different nationalities, races, religions, sex, or species – but is based on our intrinsic connection to the each other and our planet.
Each individual person may be small but each one of us is a valuable piece of an awe-inspiring entity of infinitely creative expanding puzzle – call it the Soul of the Universe, personify it as God, or talk about it as a complex combination of protons and electrons – whatever terms you wish to use doesn’t really make a difference as either way we can know we are part of an incredible process.
I share this story as I journey through David Christian’s Big History course at Macquarie University whilst reading a number of fantastic (albeit challenging) books on evolution, quantum physics and process theology. I have a feeling that a trip to India in May, will enlighten my understanding in different ways, and finally as I begin some kind of MPhil/PhD in July, the story will continue.
Our Story is about evolution, and the story itself is evolving. Our Story will always be held tentative to new insights and discoveries. Our human minds shall continue to expand, engaging with the gaps in Our Story, asking questions and seeking answers. As time progresses great thinkers, scientists and gurus will make profound realisations, each which shall bring us closer to the great unknowable “Truth” – an unachievable objective that shall always be our aim.
Our Story is about adaptation. Our Story is about process not results. Our Story is about “conscientization” – awareness of self-in-context, allowing for perception and renouncing all forms of mental, social and political oppression.
Through this journey I hope to understand more about our humble unknown beginnings, the awe-inspiring process of our evolution, the incredible birth of human self-reflective consciousness, and the relevance of these three factors on our lives today and into the future.
My key reference points for now are Prof. David Christian’s two books: Maps of Time and This Fleeting World, his lecture notes, Richard Dawkin’s The Ancestor’s Tale (audio book), Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything (audio book), Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel, Garry Trompf In Search of Origins, John Polkinghorne’s Exploring Reality, and the late Charles Birch’s Biology and the Riddle of Life. Alongside another hundred or so titles from experts I’m yet to discover.
We will step through four stages: the cosmos, earth, life and humanity, each with probably fair few posts spread over a fairly long time as I learn the information, process it, and finally get around to sharing it with you. I will try to provide a rounded perspective that combines my (relatively limited) knowledge of the sciences, philosophy and religion. Please remember all “facts” remain tentative to new discoveries. The first chapter of our story – the “big bang” will be posted tomorrow 
Picture credits:
I’m not sure where I got this artwork – I found it amongst my old computer files that I believe I took from random websites - if anyone knows its source please let me know so I can credit them…
Share this article
How Religion Spread
You MUST check out this awesome animated map of history. It shows when each religion starts and how each one spreads across the globe – all in less than two minutes.
http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/Religion.swf
It’s been a busy week so I will start the Big History series, beginning with the Big Bang, very soon.
Have a good weekend!
Share this article
A fear of death. A fear of life.
Juan, my new friend on Galapagos islands saw the look of horror on my face when I saw the iguana carcass.
“It’s part of life,” he shrugged.
As time on the islands passed I would see many more examples of the cycle of life and death, from the crab shell above to baby birds, to the bones of a sea-lion below. What struck me more than the death was the life that these animals live.
On these magical islands, animals live their lives to their full potential – they live their lives without fear. And they accept their fates with grace.
Well, at least that’s what they told me anyway… anyway moving on.
So I’m learning to ride a scooter. Why? Environmental reasons? Monetary reasons? Parking reasons? … Actually, to be completely honest, my main motivation is that scooters are simply SO INCREDIBLY FUN!!! The lesser impact scooters have on the environment, on my pocket, and on my sanity when it comes to parking, are nice little added bonuses.
Today was my first day of the pre-learner course. It was like rekindling a lost love. Air and space surrounding my body as I sped along (at probably no more than 4km per hour so far) whisked me away to some other state of being. Was I once a bird flying in the sky? Was I once a horse galloping in a wild herd? Are these animals more me than I realise? I love scooters. I can’t wait to have my own: to ride to the beach, to uni, to the pilates classes I’ll one day get off my arse and start teaching again.
Alongside scootering it’s been an exciting few days. Yesterday I received an offer to present a paper at a peace conference in Mumbai. Considering I really don’t have to be in Australia for the month of May I figure I may as well backpack around India while I’m there. Maybe I could even write a sequel to my yet-to-be-published book… Ah dreams, gotta have them!
Backpacking alone around India, scootering around the city – am I afraid of killing myself in the process? No, not really. And if I do die, so be it.
I am NOT afraid of dying. I AM afraid of NOT LIVING LIFE TO IT’S FULL.
When it’s my time to go, I’m ready. Is that weird?
…
Death. What do you feel when you hear this word? Death. The last chapter of our life. Does it make you feel scared? Sad? Insecure? Happy?
Death, the only absolute in life, is what many people live their lives in fear of. But why? Is death really so scary? It’s completely unavoidable. One day it will happen to you. And that is that. Is there really any point in worrying about it?
Life & death. Two concepts completely meaningless without the other. Death is the inevitable consequence of life. Without death life on earth would never have evolved. It is through death that adaptation can occur. It is through death that new generations can become more suitable to environments than the previous. It is through death that life survives, thrives, and has lead to the diverse and beautiful flora and fauna that surrounds us and that we are a part of. We have been born into the body that we currently dwell inside, and eventually we will leave that body. When? No one knows. What will it feel like to be dead? People can pretend they know, but if we are sincerely honest with ourselves, we all know that no one knows this either.
…
I think of death as the ultimate peace. Call it “Enlightenment”. “Heaven.” “Oneness with God”. “Rejoining the Soul of the Universe.” “Becoming one with everything that is.” “Returning to a state of nothingness.” … living in a state where there is no separateness. No more ego. No fear-driven consciousness. A place of Balance. Of equilibrium. A place where opposites cease to exist. That doesn’t sound so bad does it? A little boring maybe, but as we live on through the consciousness of everything else that exists, and as we live on in the memory of the lives we lived – death, in my mind, really isn’t so bad.
But on the other hand to not live my present conscious to it’s full potential; to live a life that harms the universe; to deny opportunities; to regret decisions; to not enjoy the moments along the way… that, to me, is far worse than death. That, to me, is torturous. But death…
As long as I have lived each day of my life to it’s full – when it is my time to go I will farewell my consciousness with grace.
…
A few more of my favourite quotes from The Alchemist:
“There was a major battle nearby, and a number of wounded were brought back to the camp. The dead soldiers were replaced by others, and life went on. Death doesn’t change anything, the boy thought.”
“There was no need to be concerned about dying – the Soul of the World awaited him, and he would soon be a part of it. And, tomorrow, his enemy would also be a part of that Soul.”
“The desert takes our men from us, and they don’t always return” she said. “We know that, and we are used to it. Those who don’t return become a part of the clouds, a part of the animals that hid in the ravines and of the water that comes from the earth. They become part of everything… they become the Soul of the World.”
“I have inside me the winds, the deserts, the oceans, the stars, and everything created in the universe.”
If I haven’t mentioned it already, this simple allegorical tale is a very effective one, and a worthwhile quick little read.
…
When it comes down to it we are all going to the same place. We are all a part of the same incredible creation. Separateness is but a temporary illusion.
The inter-connections between humans, all life, and the planet we inhabit, are evident. Now all we have to do is open our eyes and see the deeper truths behind reality. As we do I believe we will find our fears (of death and of life) will subside, allowing us to embrace life’s miraculous moments to each moment’s full potential.
Share this article
A Postmodern Grand-Narrative
Come with me on a journey through time and space… the mighty booooooshhhh! (If you haven’t seen The Mighty Boosh, do yourself a favour – watch it!)
Searching for a Postmodern Grand-narrative….
I deferred this semester’s uni in hope of getting a scholarship to support a research project starting mid-year. Although officially I’m not a student I’m still going to uni twice a week (only an hour each day) to attend the lectures of an undergrad subject – An Introduction to World History. This subject is more than World History – it covers the history of the universe, or “BIG HISTORY” as it has been termed.
As always, there’s a little story behind this…
A couple of years ago, before I went back to uni, I discovered H.G. Wells wrote a book called The Outline of History published back in 1920. (And available for free online HERE) Why didn’t I know about this book? Why didn’t everyone learn history in one nice (even if long) interesting narrative?
One of the first subjects I did back at uni was Historiography – a fascinating look at the different ways we have reported history, throughout history. I discovered the answer to my question:
H.G. Wells wrote during the period of Modernity, a time where people believed that science could provide all the answers. A time where people believed religion was no longer necessary and through a grand-narrative of history and science we could discover our place in the world, and move toward a place of unity. And then came World War Two and the cookie crumbled.
Grand-narratives were rejected and the period of Postmodernity arrived. Postmodernity is a time ‘post-war, post-holocaust, post-colonial, post-gender, post-history, and, most important for the cultural critic’s enterprise, post-‘master narrative.’ [1]
History itself was almost rejected due to it’s bias to one-sided perspectives, political motivations, propaganda, faming of heroes, demonization of oppositions, and recording of themselves as drivers of history. Absolute truth does not exist. Objectivity is impossible.
Derrida says ‘the persistent search for a centre, a fundamental ground’, maintains a given structure in a ‘false state of immobility, of finality, of fixed truth.’ We should conceive structures without a centre, so we can see they are ‘open to interpretation without end, unconfined, unreduced, unfinalized, not continuous, not linear, where truth is never arrived at, is always involved in a play of differences that keep deferring its arrival, its full presence.’ [2]
My generation was born into this confusing mixture of rejection of grand-narratives, which for me was extra confusing when combined with a religious grand-narrative that had not quite been thought through… While one text book said that Australian Aborigines had lived here for over 30,000 years, our bible classes told us Adam and Eve lived around 6,000 years ago and that they were the first humans on earth. Okay….????
Then there’s Ancient Egypt and Ancient Sumeria – what child cares about ancient civilisations that appear not the least bit significant to their life? If History, Geography, and Science are taught as disjointed from each other, and taught in a way that puts you to sleep, what’s the point of school?
In hindsight I believe schools need to teach these subjects in connection to some form of grand-narrative, even if it’s a tentative one with known gaps, but something to engage with, to gain perspective of where each piece of knowledge fits into time and space, and most importantly, how this relates to my life today.
The subject I am studying this semester at uni is doing just that – providing an overview of all the essential details that compile to tell me who I am and what process I am a part of. Oh yeah, back to my story… how met the lecturer.
Somehow in looking for more recent historical works along the same line as H.G. Wells, I came a across a book called Maps of Time by Professor David Christian from the US. I ordered it on Amazon and after reading it I sent him an email telling him how much I enjoyed it. Incredibly he wrote back telling me he was in fact working on and off at Macquarie University in Sydney! Two years later and here I am, attending his lectures, and with him as an associate supervisor of my pending research project.
What is this research project, you ask? I’m asking myself the same question. I know it’s about narratives of identity and peace. I also think it’s about bridging the gap between science and religion through the narratives we tell. It’s also about panentheism and process theology and the philosophy of science and big history… argh!!! Lucky I have time to narrow the scope… somehow I know all these factors align.
Anyway, I’ll be sharing the journey on here. To begin with I’ll be sharing what I learn at these ultra-interesting lectures on super-novas and the beginnings of life on earth and milestones and paradigm shifts throughout our history.
To give you a quick overview of where we are going, check out this AWESOME little picture of world history in a flash bang 7 minutes!
http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/movies/flash_large.php
Then buckle your seat belts and get ready to (over the next few years)… journey with me through time and space…!!!
References:
[1] Toulmin, S.E., Return to reason. 2001, Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Harvard University Press. p.1-5.
[2] Derrida, J., Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences. in Hutcheon, Linda and Natoli, Joseph P. A Postmodern reader 1993, Albany: State University of New York Press. p.224.
Share this article
Word of the day: Quixotic
Quixotic means:
1. extravagantly chivalrous or romantic; visionary, impractical, or impracticable.
2. impulsive and often rashly unpredictable.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) resembling or befitting Don Quixote.
4. caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality.
Cool word hey!
Photo from Julie Taymor’s Across The Universe – an incredible (and maybe a little quixotic) movie featuring lots of Beatles songs and the incredible charming Jim Sturgess. One of my favourite movies of all time.
I wonder if it’s a bad thing to be a little quixotic some times?
Share this article
Saving the Planet with a Sense of Humour
We are a funny species. And immensely arrogant…
George Carlin on saving the planet:
Share this article
Richard Dawkins and WHAT is God?
Interesting interview on SBS with Richard Dawkins last night. Stream it at this address:
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/600352/n/Interview-with-Richard-Dawkins
I left this comment and thought I’d share it with you:
There is a God VS there is no God.. haven’t we forgotten to define WHAT is it we refer to as “GOD”???
I was a fundamentalist Christian for 20 years but now having rejected it I am getting closer to “God”.
In evolution I see “God”. In intuition I hear “God”. God is not a man in the sky (I think even fundamentalists agree with this) “He” is the personification of creative energy behind life. Atheists prefer not to personify it.
Can we please just expose the manipulative dogmas and seek truth?
I would love to hear YOUR thoughts on this stuff…
Below are personal reflections written a couple of years ago when I was searching for answers.
Monotheisms
All monotheistic religions believe there is only one God. One transcendent being that is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresent (present everywhere.)
God, most of us acknowledge, is of a complexity beyond our mind’s capacity to ever fully understand. “He” or it, is a power beyond words our language offers us, a mystery that will always surround us but which until death we will never fully solve.
God’s name
In Spanish the word for God is Dios. In French it is Dieu. In Greek Theos. In Hebrew, Elohim. In Japanese it is Goezur, in Italian Dio, Malay Alla, Latin Deus, Peruvian Puchecammae, Persian Sire, Russian Bojh, In Syriac, Turkish and Arabic, it is Allah. Just as we say cold, the Spanish sayfrio, and Japanese samui, all refer to the same thing. When Muslims call out to Allah, they are calling out to God, but in their language. If they were to pray in English, they could call Allah God, and if we were to pray in Turkish, we would call God Allah. Different words for God doesn’t mean we pray to different gods.
God is on my side
The words Allah and God cognate two very different images of God in our minds, but why? It is due to the fact that most people in Turkey, Syria and Arabia, have been brought up Muslim, and most people in England, America and Australia, brought up to be Christian, that Allah is thought to be the god of Islam, and God, the god of Christianity. But this is wrong, both words mean God. I’m not saying that the Muslim God and the Christian God are one and the same God. No. They are two different civilizations attempts to know the same mysterious power behind life, of which both there is only one.
Islam and Christianity are based on different interpretations of someone else’s God-inspired teachings. The discrepancy between the two religions comes down to the credibility Mohammed and Jesus, the credibility of the writers who documented their stories, the credibility of their followers that continued to spread their words, and the credibility and accuracy of theologians who have interpreted these narratives into the creeds many people so strongly believe today.
Different interpretations of God’s will for different people at different times has led to each religions’ different beliefs about how to communicate with God, our life’s purpose, ideologies about how society should be run, what constitutes good morals etc, and God’s eternal plan for who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Aren’t these differences simply reflecting different civilizations in different times focusing on this one transcendent power behind our existence: worshiping it, praising it, praying to it, being inspired by it, wanting to please it and gain protection and direction from it? Surely if we can just recognize this common goal, and humbly admit our own nature as fallible humans who cannot fully comprehend this power, we have a stronger base to think through our own conceptions and ideas about God, and learn from each other’s?
Dear Christians
Does it really make sense that your God would only reveal himself to the Israelites, one small group of people who exited Egypt around 3000 years ago? What about all the people that lived before the Israelites? What about the Sumerians and Egyptians, the Indian and Chinese, the Indigenous peoples of Americas and Australia? Does God not care to have a relationship with these people too? Why would he bother creating them then?
Does it make sense that the only way to have a relationship directly with God, is by believing in Jesus? Does it really make sense that God would make the condition of entering a relationship with him be based on accepting a number of statements only available to a small percentage of the population? Is God not powerful enough to forgive without creating aformula of sacrifice and forgiveness? Wouldn’t “he” want to have a relationship with all “his” creations?
When you think of God, what image come to mind? A king? A judge? A man or woman sitting on a throne in a golden castle? This is an image but is this what you really believe God is? Does God experience days, and time? Time on earth only exists because of earth’s rotation around the sun and on its axis, so how is it in heaven? Is there a past, present and future in Heaven? Does God sit on his throne reminiscing the past – those good ol’days when Lucifer was his right-hand angel? Does God think back fondly to the times when his creation was perfect, the times when we were his obedient human creations that had not yet sinned?
Does he think about what went wrong, and wonder how he could have allowed himself to be so betrayed? Does he wish he’d used his omniscience and omnipotence to stop it? If he is omnipotent then can’t he do that now? I know we explain this by saying he wanted it to happen, because he wanted us to have choice, does that mean he is disappointed in our choice? But, can you imagine God of most power, actually feeling disappointed and sad? If you were all powerful, would you really take things so personally? Or would your ego be quite ok without needing other’s praise and acceptance?
What would the point be for God to set up such a grand narrative: throwing Satan out of heaven, planning a battle between good and evil whereby we, his special human creations, must choose which side we want to be on? All this bother when he is already “all-knowing” and knows that in the end he will win – and those that chose good will be saved and live for eternity with him. Why did he do it? Why would he bother? Just so that he could have friends? Weren’t the angels his friends? Is it because he was bored?
I guess eternal life of peace might get boring. In a place free of conflict – a place of pure peace and tranquility where every day you feel safe and happy – I think I too would eventually pick a fight with someone, fire things up, just make life interesting again… Could the narrative of a battle between Satan and God be a mythological representation of this ongoing conflict between yin and yang? Did “God” “create” each of these opposites simply in order to write a more exciting story fo the world? The universe is constructed with protons and electrons, which combine together in different combinations to create different elements which combine to create different forms of matter. + and -. It’s like binary code of a computer 0s and 1s. Necessary opposites. It is the balance of opposites that make up for me the wonder of life.
“God” created this myriad of experiences available to us, so that life can be experienced to the full, in whichever way we want. God is more creative, clever and powerful than we give him credit for. In my mind “He” is not some ego maniac king demanding praise and creating hard-to-belief formulas with the requirement for us to believe it, so that when we die, we can meet him and become his servants in heaven. This image sounds like something people living in these type of conditions on earth would have imagined. Think about it, does it really make sense?
How can we believe God is omnipotent if we believe Satan to be a serious threat to our salvation? How can we believe God is omniscient, knowing already who will be in heaven, yet simultaneously believe we have free choice? The only way this can make sense to me is through the omnipresence of “God” when freed from human-constructed conceptions of “His” form.
How I imagine “God”
If God is present everywhere then isn’t “he” in every cell of our body and every spec of matter in our universe?And hence if we are in God and God is in us, can we not derive that the universe IS God. God may be bigger than the universe too, we can never know what’s outside our universe, but we can know that God is everythingin this universe.
I see “God” in the middle of “His” process of self-creative evolution. We humans might even be God in his most creative and dynamic expression to date. More recent developments in this creation process have led to an individualistic self-awareness, whereby we have developed complex minds that construct and deconstruct the realities around us. This is a magnificent part of God’s creative expression, yet in the process we have taken an interesting turn. We are born into a world that teaches us we are separate: separate from each other, separate from nature, and most important, separate from God. This separateness has led to creation of an ego. Our ego has positives and negatives. It allows a greater breadth of feelings, yet is also the cause of loneliness, fear, and confusion. Through self-analysis we have lost sight of what we are and what is our purpose. Our separateness feels like an eternal separateness, and most of all we fear what will happen when we die.
Our purpose in life, as an expression of God, is to continue our collective godly process of creation. To do this we must reconnect with our true self, this means listening to the voice deep within each of us and taking comfort in the fact that all of us are separate yet one. We are all expressions of God, and together we are God. God is you, me, humanity, all life, and the entire universe and beyond – we are all God.
When we realize this, we will realise that peace is possible. This paradigm shift is consistent with all religions, and sciences. Ultimately we are all matter, and in a reality that mind-body-spirit between man, animal and plant, all connect in ways we do not yet understand. Developments in quantum physics, in discovering your intuition, connect to Buddhism, connect to mysticism, connect to the teachings of Jesus, Mohammad, Abraham, Buddha and all the other spiritual gurus of the past and of today.
If we open our minds to an image of God that is not the symbolic one we have grown up with, if we recognise our interpretations are fallible, if we accept that “God” is an incredible entity of which we are a part of even if “He” is not a person and exists in a form that no words can describe – then I think we can truly discover a relationship with God/Our Universe, that so many wise teachers have described.
If we wish to forego our egos, we can return to the oneness of God – just as Buddhists do when they meditate into blissful enlightenment. But egos are also a source of pleasure and competition which spurs creativity. Maybe egos are also good, as long as it’s kept in perspective of the oneness which we are more deeply a part of. I don’t know – what do you think??? (comments??)
Ego or no ego I believe we are simultaneously God’s creation and God’s creators, and we have a purpose: to create! This means we can transform this world and universe to the one we want it to be. How? Well we can start by reconnecting with each other, increasing awareness of our egos, and designing a vision, a blueprint, of the reality we want to create.
Oh, and if you are interested in the comment from Pat Robertson (a leading evangelical in the US) that said Haiti experienced the quake because of their “pact with the devil”, I found the snippet from his interview on youtube:
Arghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
And when it comes to Atheists – don’t you think they have a right NOT to personify this power if they don’t want to? What difference should it make to anyone else if some people personify it while others talk about it in the scientific terms they decide to delegate to it? Richard Dawkins may be a little derogatory in his approach but he makes a good point – at least he is going about his pursuit of truth through words not war.
When it comes to the crunch we are all incredibly complex beings inside an incredibly complex universe constructed by an incredibly powerful creative energy – personified as God or described as a series of Supernovas – aren’t we all just using different words and conceptions to describe the same thing?
Share this article
Narrative of the TXT
Do you ever send a text later wonder if the receiver interpreted as you intended? Do you ever receive a text and wonder what the sender meant?
On my walk this morning (my ankle is finally better!!!) I found my mind applying narratological concepts to txt messages and facebook.
When I received a text message my interpretation is influenced by more than just the words it contains. The narrative of the text is also determined by: who sent it, my relationship with that person, my past experience with that person, the day and time the message was sent, and finally the words the text contains interpreted within the context of my personal understanding of my and the sender’s language and my and the sender’s culture.
Let me give you an example:
Once upon a time a male friend sent me a message in the early evening that told me about his day and said he ‘should be back in Sydney around 10…’
Ok – what’s that supposed to mean?
‘It’s a booty call,’ another platonic male friend told me.
Seeing I was attracted to the guy who sent it, and seeing as the guy was having troubles with his girlfriend, and seeing as our culture reads such a message in such a way – I had to agree. It took will power, but I didn’t reply.
Questionable narratives are often embedded in the text messages I send with the intention of making a witty jokes, but which after sending I rethink, wondering whether or not the receiver has instead taken my words seriously.
For example last night another male friend sent me a txt that read, ‘I was in paddo all night tonight and totally forgot to call you…’
In the context of who this guy is (cute and I think single), my relationship with this person (platonic thus far) and past experience (flirty but does not go anywhere, and who I haven’t spoken to in over a month), the time (3am after a Saturday night out) combined with his choice of words led me to read his txt as a message send more or less to just say hey. So I replied jokingly, ‘Well that makes me feel special ; )’
But then the rethink: will my text be received as the light-hearted joke I intended? I rely on that little wink to notify receivers that I’m not serious – but do they read it the way I intend? I guess the local moral for any of my friends reading this blog is that if my texts contain a wink then, as an old friend used to say, “it’s a joke, you may use it,” and I hope that, even if my jokes are not very funny, you will laugh 
Wider questions also arise: be it in a txt msg, a status update, a telephone call, or even face-to-face communication what is narrative do people interpret from our texts? How can we prevent our intended messages from getting lost? Or is the ambiguity of texts and the openness for interpretation all just part of the fun of it?
Share this article
A time for everything
Time is the most valuable asset we have. We count as weeks and years go by, as we get older and our borrowed energy starts to dwindle. There’s not enough time in our day. Not enough time in our weeks. Not enough time in our lives. And yet there is, we just have to accept that there is a time for everything:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate;
a time of war, and a time of peace.
…
You wouldn’t expect this to come out of the bible hey! So Taoist!!! And so true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.
A photographic interpretation:
A time for icecream
A time for dropping it
A time for five-second rules? (and pouting)
And I’ll always have time for huskies.
Photo credits:
Bernie de Belles http://debellesimages.com
Share this article
A different lens
What lens do you use when you look at the world?
Is it a 35mm – where everything is pretty much a “normal” proportion? Is it a micro-lens, magnifying the small details? Or is it a wide-angle lens, taking in the big picture?
Just as different camera lenses capture completely different images, so too do our own eyes. We each inevitably look through a lens created by our upbringing, our society and culture, our education and our past experiences. Conflicts throughout history, conflicts between countries, and conflicts between people, take root in the lens through which we see ourselves, and each other.
My mentor once told me that our innermost being is the “essential” person that is surrounded by the “wounded” person, while the outermost part is the “defended” person. Whenever a person speaks in a defensive way they are protecting the wounded person, so their defensiveness gives us clues to the nature of their wounds. When they speak in a non-defensive way, they are speaking from their essential nature.
I think our wounds and our defensive layers are a consequence of looking through a micro-lens. This prevents us from seeing the people and situation for what they really are.
If we can widen our lens might we discern what is defensive from what is not? Can looking through a new lens help us distinguish between a person’s wounds, and their essential nature? How might non-defensive communication better our lives?
Photo credits:
Photographer Andre Rival www.andrerival.com
Makeup artist Winston Torr www.TORRup.com
Share this article
True Blood
Ok, so you’ve seen True Blood right? If not you should…
From wikipedia (I’m too lazy to write today):
True Blood is based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries (informally known as The Sookie Stackhouse Novels / Chronicles and retronymed the True Blood Series) is a series of books written by The New York Times bestselling author Charlaine Harris.
Within the fictional universe vampires have “come out of the coffin” (a term coined as a play on “coming out of the closet”), when scientists in Japan invent a synthetic form of blood called “Tru Blood.” No longer relying on human blood to survive, vampires are able to integrate themselves into human society (or “mainstream”).
How cool is this opening sequence!!!
Also from wikipedia:
Conceptually, Digital Kitchen elected to construct the sequence around the idea of “the whore in the house of prayer”[15] by intermingling contradictory images of sex, violence and religion and displaying them from the point of view of “a supernatural, predatory creature observing human beings from the shadows …”[14]Digital Kitchen also wished to explore ideas of redemption and forgiveness, and thus arranged for the sequence to progress from morning to night and to culminate in a baptism.[15]
In editing the opening, Digital Kitchen wanted to express how “religious fanaticism” and “sexual energy” could corrupt humans and make them animalistic. Accordingly, several frames of some shots were cut to give movements a jittery feel, while other shots were simply played back very slowly. Individual frames were also splattered with drops of blood.[15] The sequence’s transitions were constructed differently, though; they were made with a Polaroid transfer technique. The last frame of one shot and the first frame of another were taken as a single Polaroid photo, which was then divided between emulsion and backing. The emulsion was then filmed being further separated by chemicals and those shots of this separation were placed back into the final edit.[14]
The best thing about it is the metaphors and parallels to things happening in our world today. More about that next time.
The first two series are out and the third is on it’s way. So… check it out!!!
Share this article
Finding treasure
Have you read The Alchemist – by Paulo Coelho? The first time I picked it up it didn’t grab me and I soon put it down. But the second time I picked it up, the simplistic beauty of the allegorical novel suddenly clicked. I’m going to share some of my favourite quotes over the next few weeks.
Paulo describes four obstacles to finding treasure:
“First we are told from childhood onwards that everything we want to do is impossible.”
“The second obstacle: love. We know what we want to do, but are afraid of hurting those around us by abandoning everything in order to pursue our dream.”
“The third obstacle: fear of defeats we will meet on the path. We who fight for our dream suffer far more when it doesn’t work out, because we cannot fall back on the old excuse, ‘Oh, well, I didn’t really want it anyway.’”
“The fourth obstacle: the fear of realizing the dream for which we have been fighting all our lives.”
… BUT we do deserve to get what we want and there’s no reason not to realise your dreams.
“Everyone on earth has a treasure that awaits him,” his heart said. “We, people’s hearts, seldom say much about those treasures because people no longer want to go in search of them. We speak of them only to children. Later we simply let life proceed, in its own direction, toward its own fate. But, unfortunately, very few follow the path laid out for them – the path to their destinies, and to happiness. Most people see the world as a threatening place, and, because they do, the world turns out, indeed, to be a threatening place.”
Are you following a path to happiness?