Here's a posting to let you know what I'm up to lately. Like I said in the post on What exactly is SMN and how does it connect with other technologies? I've been focussing on concrete implementations lately, rather than on discussions. One project was an artistic collaboration with Glistening Deepwater, called Mystic Visions. I've explored quite deeply into semantic and web 2.0 technologies. I've implemented the core algorithm for SMN in Java and the system simulation engine now has full functionality and the models can be imported or exported as XML files (this is still in further development but will be available for download soon).

But the current project on my mind is the idea of a System Oriented Modelling Paradigm. To give you some idea of what I mean, below are some excerpts from recent design documents – they are just a brainstorm at present. If these ideas make sense to you and you want to get involved then contact me – it will soon be released as an open source project.

The project involves an analysis of general computational processes and general systems, which re-orients system modelling practices upon a coherent metaphysical foundation rather than on a commonsense naïve realist foundation. Traditional modelling practices are seen in a new light and minor optimisations are proposed that can considerably extend the potential and overall functionality of designed systems. A detailed example is given in the context of software engineering.

What exactly is SMN and how does it connect with other technologies?

I have recently begun to take a new approach, not focusing on explanations but instead on concrete demonstrations, instead of producing essays about ideas I'll focus on producing concrete products such as ontologies, software, etc.

I have also been looking into ways to get the message across. I have decided to look into developing SMN and thereby giving the mass consciousness what it wants - this will help to get its attention.

Understanding New Technology

First a quote from an article about XML, B2B and The XML/edi Group...

/quote
Gerry Galewski, a philosopher on information technologies, gave a provocative explanation on why it often takes years to truly appreciate the full potential of new technology:

"... when a breakthrough in technology is achieved, it takes us a while as a culture to figure out what we really have. New developments are culturally assimilated often based on what has come before. We can't help but place the new developments within an historical context.

"Here's an example: In 1844 Samuel Morse invented the ability to transmit information coded into electromagnetic pulses. He sent the first message of dot dash dot dot dash from Baltimore to Washington DC, and therefore people called this telegraphy.

"That first message Morse sent was 'What hath God wrought.' Telegraphy became ingrained into the cultural consciousness. It was easy to understand and deploy.

"Fifty years later, Marconi made a technological breakthrough. He broadcast electromagnetic waves through the air. But what did he send? The ability to modulate a signal was well understood. But Marconi sent dot dash dot dot dash. That is what was ingrained into the cultural consciousness of the time. So people called this wonderful new tool, simply "Wireless Telegraphy." Within their frame of reference, they didn't know what they really had. It took another twenty years for Lee Deforest to apply practical knowledge that had been around for decades. Deforest had the Eureka event, and gave us radio.  More >

Blind Spots and Naive Realism

Did you know we all have blind spots! See for yourself. Just cover one eye and stare at the central smiley, but observe all three, then slowly move your face closer to the screen.

                                  :)                                                       :)                                                      :)

At a certain distance the left eye cannot see the left smiley and the right eye cannot see the right smiley.

These are localised points of blindness and their dimensions are apparent if you rotate your head.

This means that there are holes in our visual perception.

But these holes don't show up in our experience! This is an important fact.

There are holes in our visual perception, which means that there are missing information channels where signals do not enter our system. But there are no holes in our experience of visual perception.  More >

Commonsense, Fascist Regimes and the Ego

Whilst talking about commonsense realism and truly overcoming it, are two very different things it is still very useful to talk about something when there is extreme misunderstanding about it.

To give an example - talking about the dangers of smoking and actually quitting are two very different things however if a person believed that smoking was totally natural and normal and there was no reason to quit then first they need to overcome that illusion before they have any chance of actually quitting and becoming healthy. Talk can be a vital preliminary to actually doing.

So I'll clarify commonsense realism a little more by talking about commonsense in general. Commonsense is just a blanket term for whatever unquestioned belief system is dominant at the present time.

At various times it has been commonsense to keep slaves or to beat children or to oppress women or to carry a sword or to wear high heels or to smoke cigarettes. Commonsense is a collective trance that changes over time according to its own dynamic.

Furthermore, civilisation is a communal understanding and commonsense is the foundation of that understanding. It is a subtle dogma that maintains a regime. See The Gaian-Ego Hypothesis and Collective Meditation to Counter the Collective Ego.

Every regime has its dogma which is a set of beliefs that are protected from reason by a culture of denial. The nature of a regime is determined by the nature of its commonsense.  More >

Interaction, Economics and the Human Condition

Money is a medium of exchange to facilitate human interaction - it represents interaction energy. But what is interaction and what are its effects?

From the perspective of system theory systems don't just exist, they arise from the interactions of their sub-systems. Systems are emergent phenomena that depend upon interaction. If the interactions occur the higher level systems emerge and if the interactions don't occur then the higher level systems don't emerge. If the interactions are coherent and sufficient then the emergent systems are sane and 'healthy', and if the interactions are incoherent or insufficient then the emergent systems are insane or 'unhealthy'.

There are as many different interaction contexts and mediums of exchange as there are different kinds of systems. When considering just human social systems the mediums of exchange range from words, ideas, gestures, compassion, kudos, effort, time, ingenuity, objects, resources, and so on. But in the current system all values are ultimately expressed in terms of a single medium - money - which has become an abstract value in its own right that has become disassociated from its original values. Whether it is food, land, products, services, health, life, sanity and so on - these are all expressed in terms of money and are made subservient to money.

From system theory we see that the purpose of interaction is the creation and maintenance of systems and from economics we see that money is a medium of exchange to facilitate human interaction. So economics is about the creation and maintenance of social systems by facilitating human interactions - it is the metabolism of organisation. Where organisation is the cooperative integration of many people toward a common end and ultimately the common end is life, i.e. harmonious and effective living. But the economic system has largely become disassociated from this context and re-imagined within an abstract capitalist discourse (i.e. one that is capital-centric and not life-centric). It has become an abstract game that is geared toward healthy capitalist organisation and not toward healthy human interaction and social organisation.  More >

Collective Meditation to Counter the Collective Ego

I'll first summarise, in a paragraph, a conceptual lead in to this discussion. Everything can be conceived of as a complex system, cells interact and integrate to create cellular civilisations, these form centralised power structures that call themselves 'I' - this is the ego - it is not the real being but just a thought construct that arises via commonsense realism. Then these egos interact and integrate to create human civilisations, these form centralised power structures that are increasingly coming to think 'I' - this is the collective ego - it is not the real civilisation but just a cultural construct that arises via commonsense realism. Just as commonsense realism and the ego are the ultimate source of all delusion and dysfunction in humans (cellular civilisations) commonsense realism and the collective ego are the ultimate source of all delusion and dysfunction in society and the world at large. Just as meditation can help to overcome commonsense realism and the tyranny of the ego in individual humans (cellular civilisations) resulting in liberation and bliss it can also be adapted to help overcome commonsense realism and the tyranny of the collective ego in human civilisations resulting in liberation and bliss.

This discussion consists of excerpts from my yet to be released e-book "The Gaian-Ego Hypothesis", which follow on conceptually from the preview article The Gaian-Ego Hypothesis and the article Ego and the Denial of Complexity. It is also closely related to Commonsense Realism and the Ego, The Scientific Case Against Materialism, The Mystic Meaning of Original Sin and this comment about thinking outside the box and the ego as the box maker. These all provide conceptual background that will help you understand what this article is about, what meditation is useful for and why macro-meditation is required. I recommend familiarising yourself with those ideas but the first paragraph above gives the gist of them.

In the quotes below I have made a start at adapting the principles of meditation for collective purposes. This is just a start to indicate the general outline of what I feel is required. I strongly urge others to think about this and help to further develop these ideas, in your own way or as an extension of these strategies.  More >

Commonsense Realism and the Ego

Commonsense realism is a profoundly important concept that impacts on all subjects. It is central to The Scientific Case Against Materialism and The Mystic Meaning of Original Sin is essentially that "Commonsense realism IS the original sin". It is the root cause of all delusion (which is the real meaning of 'sin'), the first of which is the ego, which then forms the centre of a whole world of delusion (maya or samsara). Without understanding commonsense realism we cannot truly understand the ego (see these articles for a systemic perspective on the ego).

In each moment of awareness commonsense realism blinds us to reality and causes us to dwell in a fantasy land that is constructed from false beliefs within our own minds that we unquestioning mistake for the external objective world. With our thoughts we construct a subjective experiential world with the ego as the main fictional character at its centre and commonsense realism causes us to confuse this as being the objective reality. I have discussed commonsense realism in the above articles but I'll go into more detail about it and its relation to the ego here.  More >

The Mystic Meaning of Original Sin

This was inspired by comments from Astrid. She associated it with selfishness and greed; the need to take from the world. I agree but the original sin, I think, can be clearly identified, let me explain...

Firstly regarding sin, in all the mystic traditions that I have studied my understanding of the concept of 'sin' is that it is associated with illusion and delusion, which causes us to get out of synch with the harmony of the cosmic symphony. This then gives rise to acts that are out of harmony with the whole and creates dysfunction and suffering that spreads like ripples through the interconnected system. The act isn't the sin, it's the delusion that is. It is only in mystic traditions that were corrupted for political / authoritarian purposes that this meaning was twisted to mean certain actions that were prohibited by the set of rules imposed by the authoritarian structure.

As for original sin, I agree, it doesn't mean "in far distant time", it means the originating illusion as in the root cause of illusion. This operates in each moment of awareness. As each impression is interpreted by the subconscious it becomes distorted by false beliefs and agendas. This distorted impression is then experienced by the conscious mind which is oblivious to the fact that it is experiencing a subjective impression and it assumes that it is experiencing "the world" as it is "out there".

It is this last step, called commonsense realism or naive realism that is the root cause of all further delusions. NAIVE REALISM IS ORIGINAL SIN. Even with a mind free of other false beliefs this last step soon fills the mind full of false beliefs. It is the cause of our "fall from grace".

In reality: “That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman – that thou art.” (Sankaracharya)  More >

The Scientific Case Against Materialism

Here is a story told through quotes, comments and links related to commonsense (naive) realism, epistemology, materialism, information theoretic metaphysics, consciousness, empirical science, mysticism, holistic science and also system theory. There's some fascinating links to profound experiments into the nature of consciousness if you don't already know about them... (The PEAR REG/GCP experiments)

Skepticism

Skepticism "is the application of reason to any and all ideas - no sacred cows allowed... Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are 'skeptical' we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe." (http://www.skeptic.com)

Furthermore "To some degree skepticism manifests itself in the scientific method, which demands that all things assumed as facts be questioned. But the positivism of many scientists, whether latent or open, is incompatible with skepticism, for it accepts without question the assumption that material effect is impossible without material cause." (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism)

So materialism is NOT a skeptical position to take - because it is based upon the unquestioned assumption and belief in the primacy of matter. If people were to question it and not simply assert their beliefs it could be a skeptical position but any deep questioning soon shows it to be unable to withstand such questioning.

Commonsense (Naive) Realism

"Naïve realism is a common sense theory of perception. Most people, until they start reflecting philosophically, are naïve realists. This theory is also known as "direct realism" or "common sense realism". Naïve realism claims that the world is pretty much as common sense would have it. All objects are composed of matter, they occupy space, and have properties such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour. [It is assumed that] These properties are usually perceived correctly. So, when we look at and touch things we see and feel those things directly, and so perceive them as they really are." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism)

In its most common form a naive realist thinks "I ... am a human being. There is this one physical world, the space where everything exists and the time in which everything happens. There are many things in this physical world, each largely separate from the other and persisting over a span of time... My senses give me direct knowledge of reality. If I see a chair, it is because there is a chair physically where and when I see it. There are exceptions, like when I am dreaming or watching a movie, but these are rare and obviously not real. I can know things through my senses, through thinking about things, and through communication with other people. Other people's beliefs may be correct or not, but beliefs of people I respect, and beliefs held commonly by most people in my society, are usually true." (http://www.boogieonline.com/seeking/first/yesterday.html)

It is a general tendency of naive realists to be unaware that their beliefs are in fact beliefs. They consider them to simply be obvious facts about the way things are. This is because they have not yet questioned their beliefs. They are naive believers but they often also believe that they are skeptical. It is a habitual credulous state of mind and the habit can be very hard to overcome.

"Karl Popper (1970) pointed out that although Hume’s idealism appeared to him to be a strict refutation of commonsense realism, and although he felt rationally obliged to regard commonsense realism as a mistake, he admitted that he was, in practice, quite unable to disbelieve in it for more than an hour: that, at heart, Hume was a commonsense realist. [And] Edmund Husserl (1970), saw the phenomenologist in Hume when he showed that some perceptions are interrelated or associated to form other perceptions which are then projected onto a world putatively outside the mind." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume)

I.e. objects which are assumed to comprise the "external world" are really objects of perception. To attribute them with external reality is an act of belief for which there is no rational basis.  More >