A Profound Lesson

Yesterday was a magnificent sunset; It was particularly captivating. I am prone to noticing magnificent sunsets as my room view is positioned directly west, and due to the geographical landscape of my area, I have the privilege to witness some of the most heavenly skies I've ever seen - only when I notice them, of course. For the longest time, I didn't recognize beauty where it was -- it's only there for those seeking it. Now, however, I am more aware of it.

Yesterday, the sunset bore remarkable resemblance to a galaxy. It was scary how much it resembled photos of the Milky Way. Perhaps I'm just passionate about it, but I am not exaggerating as much as you might think I am. Unfortunately, I couldn't snap any photos of it. Rest assured, I enjoyed it immensely -- and that's really what's important. But the story I wish to tell is about today's trip to see a nice sunset.

So let is begin from there now.

My intention was to witness a nice sunset -- perhaps like yesterday's, if I was lucky.
My plan was to go to the top of Centennial Hill so I have an unobstructed view for gazing and photography purposes. Unfortunately due to sloppy planning, by the time I left, the sun had almost set.
Against my parents' protests about the futility of venturing on such a cold eve since it was already late, I decided to go anyway.

What started out a simple trip, turned into a profound meditation into the human condition.

It seemed like the wind was tempting me to quit, endlessly lashing gusts of cold air in my face.
Admittedly, I was probably underequipped for such a cold eve; nevertheless, it was too late to turn back now. I chose to bike there, which has both pros and cons in a sense. It meant I would arrive at my destination faster. The con...well, if you've ever biked fast against the wind for a prolonged amount of time in a very chilly day, then you would know. I had come for a reason, and for better or worse, I would get there anyway; pain couldn't discourage me.

Finally I arrived. I made my way to the top of the hill. The now barren, desolate, landscape of the top that once blossomed with greenery seemed unusually empty. I stood alone beside a tree, stripped of its leaves; its naked branches flailing in the wind. Here I was, with an unobstructed, 360 degree view of many of Toronto's Landmarks. Directly east, I faced the CN Tower, and not far from my gaze, was the airport. And, of course, there was the sunset - the real purpose of my trip.
It wasn't anything special by my standards, but then again, these things are either a hit or miss. The clouds in the sky, each with their unique characteristics and shapes, and sunsets, are like snowflakes - each is unique. So I stood on the top of a hill, civilization below me, gazing at the slightly disappointing sunset. And then, it happened. I thought the sun had set, but all of a sudden the clouds grew illuminated with a deep rich colour. Their essence was infused more and more with fiery colour as the red rays of the sun permeated more and more within them, and I stood in awe at this transformation. Such pleasant, bright, fresh red, it was. And then I looked around, gazing far at the other directions, which now stood much darker and gloomier.That's when I realized something else.
Despite the gloomy darkness that covered the vast majority of the skies, my attention rested solely on the burning red specs of light that burst through the clouds. In other words, I didn't focus on the dark, I focused on the LIGHT. It struck me that life is no different - filled with both its positive and negative dramas. The only thing we REALLY have control is where we place our FOCUS. And sometimes, especially in difficult situations, when darkness seems prevalent, it's so hard to notice the light - the positive, the beauty that exists. But nevertheless, it is there if you seek it; if you focus on it.

Something wonderful also occurred. The darker the rest of the sky got, the brighter that focused patch burned. How is this relevant to anything else? I saw it as an existential metaphor for the powerful ability we have to turn around any situation. The worse things get, the more potential for good arises. The darker things seem, the more potential benefit there is to gained; Powerful lessons can be learned in such a situation.
With this realization and with the gorgeous sunset almost, but not entirely gone, I descended downwards on my bike, self-assured, and glad that I ventured, despite my many doubts. The mundane can really offer us powerful metaphors and lessons for existence.
- August 18th, 2011.

Paranormal Phenomena and the Scientific Community

This blog post is going to be about my general discontent with the general unscientific and close-minded, in my opinion, approach towards paranormal subjects in academia. In psychology class, we had the pleasure of watching a documentary about the idea of alien abductions. The documentary revolved around several self-proclaimed abductees and an artist who held weekly therapy sessions with them, as well as performing hypnosis and various other forms of regression on them. Some scientists such as Carl Sagan and the late John E. Mack as well as other prominent researchers of such phenomena, and science-popularizers were interviewed as well.

Before I begin my critique, it is first important to introduce and define a concept known as Occam's Razor. This principle, often applied in critical thinking, states that the simplest explanation is the one that is most likely true. For instance, consider someone's account of seeing a strange object in the sky. Generally, the simplest explanation in this case would be that the object was an airplane (perhaps whose form looked different from a particular angular perspective or reflection), and definitely not an extra-terrestrial spacecraft.

Often Occam's razor is useful; however, there are rare exceptions and problems with this paradigm of thinking. A big problem, the way I see it, is the given perspective of examining and issue an assigning a certain label based on ones past history, bias and so forth. In other words, what is simple? Isn't something simple to us, relatively not so for another culture? And of course, often times, the simplest explanation isn't the correct one. In the above ufo sighting example, it is probably correct, but what would happen in a different culture? Consider an indigenous society, one of many such societies currently inhabiting isolated jungles in, say, South America. Such a society, primitive by our standards, will likely attribute the sighting of an unknown object as a familiar one - such as, say, a bird or an eagle. To them, this really would be the simplest explanation; Indeed, it may be turn out to be correct most of the time, but in the case of the plane, it would not. This is one of the pitfalls one could fall into when taking Occam's razor tooseriously.

This, therefore, begs the question: "Do we really know what's simple?" Can we evaluate things in such a way? Are we qualified to do so? In many cases, Occam's razor serves us just fine, but it should not be the final verdict; Rather, Occam's razor is a simple heuristical tool - nothing more, nothing less.

Now, back to the topic at hand.
So in this documentary, we have an artist, who devoid of any scientific credentials, conducts regular therapy sessions to people who have read his books about abductions and written to him about their experiences. Though not formally trained, he seems well-versed and fairly intelligent. Many of these people come with conscious memories of such experiences, often traumatic, and he uses a process of hypnotic regression to extract supposedly hidden, locked-away, memories of other encounters. It is important to note that the subjects in the cases all seem to be comprised of people from all walks of life, intelligent, mentally sane and no sign of any other problems (except, perhaps some trauma from said incidents).

Long story short, after meeting with the artist/therapy facilitator, John E. Mack - a prominent, Pulitzer-prize winning, Harvard Medical School psychiatrist, agreed to do a study and analyze some of these patients and their stories. Though he was highly skeptical initially, his disbelief gradually diminished as he uncovered remarkable consistencies in each case (all the stories were nearly identical), coupled with sincerity, intense emotional states, honesty and remarkable conviction in all the subjects. Through his experience with hundreds of patients prior to this investigation, he knew something was up, so to speak.

Could it really be any other way? The subjects all had remarkably similar accounts, no prior history of mental problems or any other questionable characteristics that would make him doubt the case. After that study, John E. Mack became a proponent of the cause and believed that this was a legitimate phenomenon requiring more study.

Carl Sagan, who I also highly respect, said that one cannot easily dismiss these findings as there is an obvious phenomenon of either remarkably similar hallucinations en masse, OR legitimate encounters with alien beings. Sagan, who launched the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) many years ago, concluded that he had no doubt that these were hallucinations; After all, nobody had any concrete proof of the existence of aliens yet.

Other professors and researchers were also featured and claimed that such phenomena were often the cause of hypnagogic states, hypnagogic hallucinations, other kinds of night terror dreams and other things.

Perhaps the saddest part of this story is that of academia's general closed-mindedness and unwillingness to look deeper into the validity of such paranormal phenomena. John E. Mack, for instance, was investigated on numerous occasions by peers appointed by Harvard and this drew criticism from many people, including Harvard Professor of Law, Alan Dershowitz, as they had no grounds to do so based on ethics or any other reasons. As Angela Hind said, "It was the first time in Harvard's history that a tenured professor was subjected to such an investigation." Eventually, of course, Harvard relented by apologizing and respecting John E. Mac's freedom to study the subject of his choosing. Sadly, many scientists and academics are unwilling to explore such issues -- an attitude which is not scientific at all. Their bias, as evidenced in Harvard's appointment of peers to check over Mack's research, remains only but a single example of the pervasive resistance of studying unorthodox phenomena in the scientific community. No matter how insane a subject appears at first-hand (needless to say, almost all scientific theories did at one point), many cases, such as this one aren't easily dismissible and require more attention and research.

The way I see, occam's razor applies up to a given point. One can, generally, attribute hypnagogic hallucinations as a cause to a handful of individuals retelling encounters with alien beings, but to what extent? What if it was 1000 individuals? 10,000? 100,000? Millions?
What is the 'simplest explanation' of hundreds of thousands of mentally sane people having remarkably similar memories who they tell with great emotional conviction? What about thousands of people who 'remember' similar experiences in an altered trance state of consciousness under regression hypnosis? Of course, many people question the validity of the aforementioned technique as some scientists study people's suggestibility and argue that people can be trained to make up and alter memories.

Many scientists are fearful for loss of their reputation to even venture to research such claims, let alone ague for it. John E. Mac was one of the brave few to do so, and a true scientist.
I couldn't have said this better than this youtube commenter:

"Rare footage of a rare man. Dr. John Mack was a brilliant and courageous pioneer in a field few would, even, consider. He challenged people's thinking, not to get them to believe what he is saying, but to explore the reasons why they themselves are unwilling to, even, consider such a phenomena.. Straight to the heart of the matter. "

Pain, Needs and Unfulfillment

I know I haven't really written on here in a while, but I am getting more involved with poetry and I might start a new blog for it.

In any case, I just had a conversation about something, and I felt the need to get my thoughts out about it, and it does fit the theme of this blog.

You know, I was thinking this...and intellectually it is easier to understand.
Conceptually it makes sense, but in application is where difficulty arises, and doesn't it always happen like that? So, pain arises from expectations not being met. There are, of course, various causes and sources of pain, but I am referring to the idea of psychological pain as it directly relates to the ego. All these expectations, needs, 'musts' we have, are really putting a great deal of STRESS on our being; Unfulfillment causes pain. So, therefore, it does seem logical that relaxing these pressures on our selves will go some way to decrease the intensity of that pain. The issue stems from the fact that we are 'trying' to be some way. Of course, the discrepancy between doing and trying (they are opposites) is what creates the pain. I MUST be this. I MUST be a good student. I MUST be a good partner. I MUST do this, MUST do that. Otherwise what would they think? Otherwise what kind of person would I be? Of course, this relates to many other sociological concepts such as seeking approval from external sources, and so on, but it is the self's, well...rather, the ego's insistence upon fulfilling these strict pressures on the self so that, when things don't happen as expected, you feel bad. You feel pain because you put so much pressure on doing a certain thing, being a certain way, that if somehow, it does not occur, you will be unfulfilled and extremely unhappy. Letting all these compulsions, needs, wants, identities, labels, and concepts of the ego go, and relaxing them and being 'okay' seems to be a better path to freedom. Of course, it's not easy and for some people, it may be more difficult, but it surely seems a more fulfilling path, at least to me.

NZT and Miracle Drugs

I recently saw the movie 'Limitless' and was very intrigued by its concept - a miracle drug which allows its users to use 100% of their brain by fully employing all mental faculties and giving the user a high sense of mental acuity, a deep synthesis between the conscious and subconscious minds, and a deep, penetrating insight into causal relationships.

Wouldn't it be nice to have such a drug and enjoy limitless mental powers? The ability to re-access virtually unlimited knowledge stored somewhere in the mind's subconscious database, a super high IQ and an impenetrable drive and focus, would all be pretty sweet things to have.

Some muse that the movie is really about "adderall" or "ritalin", but these are really just focus-enhancing drugs which barely scratch the surface of the idea of "100% brain use".

Within the study of nootropics - the study of smart drugs or drugs that enhance cognition and mental skills, there is many interesting choices available for someone who wants to mentally process things with more efficiency. Nothing even comes close to the prowess of "NZT", however.

Would such a drug even be possible? Clearly current nootropics aren't even close, and ADD drugs only help with focus improvement. Could the answer lie in the realms of psychedelics such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) whose users report philosophical and transcendental understanding? Perhaps, although LSD is a psychedelic, while NZT, as portrayed in the movie, does not induce hallucinations, rather simply elucidates one's mental vision.

I do think that such a drug may be (already is) possible, although obviously not to the extent of the one in the movie. If steroids are possible, why can't 'mental steroids' exist? Surely, it's not that simple and that's a faulty analogy, since neurology is more complex than muscle hypertrophy. But... I still maintain that there is undeniable demand for such a drug, and there are many individuals with boundless wealth who I'm sure could put resources together to produce or mimic even only 10% of the mythical NZT.

Until then, though, I can dream...

Money: Good or Evil?

Wow. I can hardly believe that it's been nearly a month since my last post. Time is passing quickly. But it is all in perfect timing anyway. I felt a pictorial aid may be of use, and therefore I used a stack of US dollar bills.

Money:

Unfortunately, many perceive money as a negative thing. Obviously, this understanding stems from an early association of money with negative things. For instance, many people grow up with the belief that rich people are selfish, evil, and countless other negative traits. It isn't difficult to understand why they would see money in a negative light -- they've made conscious and unconscious associations with it to negative traits.

In another example, a child who grows up in a religious family might, unfortunately -- I might add, foster similar beliefs, as it's common for religious people to feel a certain sense of "guilt" or "shame" in regards to money. It could appear in the form of disdain towards material possessions. After all, doesn't the bible teach that money is the 'root of all evil', and I will paraphrase here, "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God". However, some form of asceticism - denial of one's natural self, and a suppression of one's natural instincts, desires, and sensuality can be found in most religions.

But how can this be so? For money, like all else, is simply a form of energy. Inherently, it is neutral. It is a tool; a form of exchange. It has no preconceived meaning. None.

For the same money that corrupts people and can be used for evil, to fund wars, and other barbaric endeavors is identical to the one used to build schools, community centres, churches, and a tool for the good, overall.

Objectively speaking, money cannot be evil, for it is a neutral tool. It can be both used constructively and destructively; with good in mind, or with evil.

Meh. Discuss.

Buddhism

Personally, I like Buddhism. I believe the Eastern religions are full of wisdom, and great sources of practical spirituality. However, I do have a bone to pick with some of its principles.

For instance, a basic tenet of Buddhism is, "To live is to suffer."

In my view, reality, life and all that exists is inherently meaningless (and meaningful at the same time, I will explain.) Life cannot be inherently full of suffering, for life is different for everyone. Everyone has a unique life situation, coupled with unique experiences, memories, beliefs, situations and so on and so forth. Some people suffer a lot, while others, very little. How they, can we logically conclude that living is synonymous with suffering, when that evidently is not the case?

The truth is, life has the meaning which YOU give it. Life can be pleasurable, or full of suffering. What exactly constitutes 'suffering' anyway? Why place such a negative on a given experience? Any event filtered through lens built on a positive conceptual framework will elicit a positive response, and vice versa. So it is definitely NOT true, that living is synonymous with suffering. Although, beliefs are powerful and such a worldview may lead to a more negative experience.

Although, I will have to agree with the other noble truth that states: Desire causes suffering. When one becomes "enlightened", one stops craving desires, and thus, suffering is also eliminated.
This is TRUE, to an extent...
Desires may not cause suffering, or they might. What determines the degree of discomfort the cause is NOT the desire itself, rather, the underlying emotion behind the desire. A desire inspired and motivated from the lack of something is negative, and therefore may cause suffering. However desires can also be positive and serve as strong driving, motivational forces in the world as well.

Ironically, the desire to be free of desire is also a desire and is bound to cause suffering. Interesting...

Ultimately, it is important to approach life from a positive point-of-view. Desire is not necessarily bad, but I agree in that it can cause suffering. This is because the desire for something is the want for something you do not already have. However desires may be positive as well.

Thinking...Good or Bad?

I was thinking to myself (lol) if thinking in itself is good or bad? It seems like some individuals have a tendency to overthink or analyze things. In such cases, it does become a problem. First of all, I think it detracts from the present moment. Nietzsche is of the opinion that future obligations, promises, and so on keep us from experiencing the present. I tend to agree here. By withdrawing in your cognitive faculties, remaining in deep thought, it is hard to enjoy the present moment.

The problem is that the only time we have IS the present. The past is gone, and the future has not yet arrived, so dwelling on either can cause discontentment or anxiety. Too much thinking deprives us of enjoying the present moment in my opinion. Being present involves surrendering yourself to the senses of touch, sight, smell, hearing, tasting. While eating dinner, we often contemplate the day's experience, or think about our tasks, obligations and so forth, instead of enjoying our meal. Instead we can get lost in the rhythm of some smooth jazz, breath in the aroma of fresh Parmesan cheese and focus on the sensation of the sweet tomato sauce lathered onto a plate of whole wheat pasta and washing it down with a glass of aged wine.

Thinking is good, of course, but only to the extent that you are able to "control" the thinker within. If you cannot rid yourself of your thoughts, you do not control your mind, your mind controls you. Your thoughts aren't you, and a simple exercise of 'watching the thinker', as Eckart Tolle teaches, will demonstrate to you this fact, and allow you to experience an increased awareness of your consciousness.

I can write a lot about this topic, but I'll stop here for now seeing as I have introduced the topic.

First Topic: Dreams...Dreams, Dreams, Dreams.

I was bored in school a while ago, and decided to let my thoughts flow on a particular subject which has significance to me - dreams (the night kind. although aspirations are good too).

and so here it is:

Mots people do not think much of dreams, awarding them no merit, attributing little to no value to them and generally dismissing them as worthless.

Why do we have dreams? Likely no one can answer this question . Of course, fixating on certain things during the day with intense emotion may bring these themes into some night dreams -- this is the subconscious mind at work. But, are dreams real?

How can we be sure that our waking life is objective reality? Often, people have incredibly vivid & lucid dreams. These dreams at the time feel extremely real, and then of course, the person wakes up to the "real world".

Others claim they don't dream, but this is a misconception since everyone dream. Dreams alternate with different brainwave states and REM sleep, as one typically has around 7-10 dreams per night. Dream recall can be improved through practice and intent (the neuroplasticity of the brain will be covered in a future topic), ameliorated by a certain diet, and supplements.

Time is rather different in dreams. I've had dreams that have appeared to last days, a week, or even months. The concept of time being slower in dreams was introduced in Inception, although I'm not sure if it has basis in reality. Although one thing is certain -- time in dreams works differently. For instance, once I timed myself to have been asleep for no longer than 10 minutes. In this time I had a dream which seemed much longer than this amount. It is possible that dreams "dreams within a dream"; 'real life' constituting the latter 'dream'.

Interpreting dreams is no easy task as many psychologists have found out. The subconscious communicates to us through symbols. In other words, things are not as they appear in dreams.
Some themes in dreams are translated to real-life concept one would understand, and so, their perception becomes a bit skewed.

It is however possible that dreams themselves are glimpses at parallel realities and have as much (maybe even more?) validity than our waking life. Although there has been much scientific advancement in other areas of importance, dreams still remain a relatively unknown frontier. (Note: Unknowingly when I wrote this 2 weeks ago, I had no clue I would use this blog name, nice synchronicity here.)

A few things I am wondering about are:

What happens if we DON'T dream?
Does time exist in dreams? Or is the interpretation of the dreams translated to the concept we refer to as time, once we awake? The conscious mind always tries to make sense of things which are aligned with pre-existing beliefs, so that is something I am interested in finding out.

What is possible in lucid dreams? I've had first hand experience with LD's and can testify that they are indeed as amazing as they sound. Superpowers, etc, exist. But I am more interested in the philosophical implications of this, and as well, if we can mitigate every day tasks to the subconscious? Can we learn in ld's? Can we discover more about ourselves?

Pretty messy, but that is the first topic. More questions than answers were brought to light, but this is good. Seems like learning about dreams will be something that we will have to do empirically. That is, by consciously dreaming, achieving states of lucid dreams, and fervent experimentation.

I had also 'let my thoughts flow' on morality, but will likely not post this since I am currently studying different moral philosophies as well as the metaphysics of morality so my thoughts on it are frequently changing.

First Post!

Alright! I made my blog, after trying out a few blog names only to find out that they are all taken, I have chosen this one. Sounds positive, so that is good.

Here I will be posting my thoughts and perspectives on various topics such Philosophy, Science, Positive Psychology, Spirituality, Media, Life, and so on. Topics of paramount importance which deserve more introspection than others (at least in my opinion).

Although I will also post my thoughts on any given number of unrelated subjects if I want to. Many of my perspectives on these topics are unique. Some people may agree with them, while others, undoubtedly would not. It is important to take everything into consideration -- being open-minded is key. Critical thinking goes without saying, as well. My blog posts will usually not be very long, as I intend to avoid an essay-like structure and rather focus simply on the points I'm making.

Many of my thoughts will not be my own, some will be a mix of others' and my own, and yet others will be entirely original. Their origin should matter not and their validity should be assessed independently.

Anyway, this got way too long, but that's the introduction of my blog. Hope you enjoy it!