Archive | Science and the Media RSS feed for this section

The Aquarian Revolution is Over …

18 Dec

The Aquarian Revolution is Over; Time for a People’s Age to Begin


The Aquarian Revolution is defunct; time for a new, anti-Establishment, People’s Revolution to take on the New World Order.  A Revolution of the 99%, not of the elitists. … And one that actually serves people’s needs, not the desire of oligarchs to use popular movements and activism to serve their own globalist ends.  That’s the real kind of progress we need in the world.  Time for the oligarchy to step aside, and for a new People’s Age to begin that gets us beyond these tired expressions of religionism, elitism, and establishment values.

Totalitarianism isn’t anything new.  It’s the same old Leviathan of Tyranny we faced in the past, just with a new regrown set of heads.  Let’s stop this hydra once and for all, and then maybe a real “new” Age can begin – a new chapter in human history where we’ve set aside the trappings of this so-called ‘godly’ oligarchical order for good.

That’s our real revolution, and the real turning point now in human events.  Will we do it or will we fail?  The future’s in our hands.  It’s just a question now of whether we’re courageous enough to take the next step.

Are we?   You decide! …

Science opens the door …

17 Dec

Science opens the door for Us.  It’s time we came Inside.


Yes.  “We are the Universe,” and we’re-all-connected-in-it-and-through it.  ‘It’s in us’ and ‘we’re in it.’  Not in any goofy new age way or pantheistic sense, but in a much more tangible, spiritually meaningful way.  A much more profound and deeper way that monist religion could ever offer us as human beings.  This is our inspiration!  The stuff that drives poets, artists, and philosophers to expound on life’s wonders.  Yet what a wonder it is!  Even our arts and humanities don’t compare with it.  Science and mathematics alone has charted this poetry for us.  All we can do now is to journal our experiences of it, and that’s where the rest of human knowledge comes in, especially in the humanities.  Science isn’t shoving these other disciplines aside; it’s inviting us to explore the universe in a whole new way and think about these other fields in a whole new way also.  No, literature, art, and philosophy aren’t debunked in an age of scientific thought.  But they are recast.  It’s our job now to more effectively use them to capture and express the fullness of our experiences.  Science has opened the door for us; it’s time we set about remodeling and redecorating the households of our lives around it.  For there we will find our purposes in life, “purposes we create” with the stylus of ‘living’ and ‘expressing ourselves’ as human beings.

Our purpose, our mission, our inspiration.  That’s what science gives us.


We are the Universe

Dec 11

Posted by InspirationalFreethought.

What’s better than a bunch of individual videos narrated by Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Carl Sagan? One epic video with all three of them. Check it out:

“We Are the Universe”

New Age Ruins Everything …

17 Dec

New Age Ruins Everything:  The Corrupting Influence of Science Mysticism on Higher Considerations of Science, History, and Philosophy


New Age is problematic.  No sooner than you give it a pass; it co-opts you and your work.  It’s the perfect Capitalism AND Socialism, I guess. You give it an inch, it appropriates and capitalizes (or should I say expropriates?) a mile.  Lucky us! … Anyway, it’s this tendency of the NAM to do this kind of thing that bothers me. Quantum mechanics is a perfectly good branch of science.  Good enough on its own without having to be meddled with.  And, so is the Penrose-Hameroff model (as far as it goes).  But now that Chopra & Co. have appropriated it, and tailored it to their own brand of quantum-science-mysticism, we’re blown out to sea again and caught in this eddy of “quantum-‘consciousness’” talk [and all the metaphysical fluff that goes with it].  I’d much rather have a more solid discussion of the issue-at-hand (via Complexity theory and Psychological theoretical models) than the whole nine yards of Chopra nonsense on the matter.  But guess what, that doesn’t ‘sell’ in today’s day and age.  So, we’re left with Quantum Mechanics ala Chopra, and mainline scientists rightfully are questioning it and the entire basis of the model itself given its current form as theory/science.

I don’t want to see any more good ideas go out the window because of this New Age nonsense.  That’s why I’m as critical as I am of the current discussion going on over at Darwiniana.  Nothing personal against anyone.  But, where the original version of Landon’s Eonic Effect was more agnostic on all these issues, centering in on the open question of Kantian philosophy, now suddenly metaphysics is fine there [not “bunk”, mind you] and “geist is [no longer] bullshit.”

The original version of the Eonic Effect was great and well worth studying; still is.  But I’m afraid John’s work too has been co-opted by New Age and some of its major interests (that are now a major voice in his audience).  Over and above that, his legitimate points on History and Philosophy can’t get a word in edgewise there it seems to me. It’s a shame.

Where are the complexity theorists there?  Where are the historians and sociologists?  Where are the philosophers?  They’ve pretty much picked up shop and moved on by this point, leaving their space empty and ready to be taken up by others in the discussion.  So, in their place, a new age element has emerged and ingratiated itself there at John’s blog.  It’s overshadowing all the good stuff, supplanting “free action scripts” with ruminations on “free will” in the metaphysical sense; Kantian antimony with quasi-Buddhist considerations of “rebirth doctrine” and “mystical enlightenment.” Discussions, frankly, that cater to this NAM audience/element on the blog.

I’ve no problem with that.  It’s John’s blog after all and he can do whatever he likes on it, and court whomever he wants to there.  But I do have a problem when I see that element co-opting and overshadowing all of John’s other material and making hay off of it for the New Age Movement’s own advantage and at the expense of Landon’s prior consideration of World History as a template for thinking about evolutionary change and the critique of evolutionary systems of theory.

I don’t want to see the Eonic Effect suffer for its being confused with Divine Aeons, and therefore be recast and re-branded as being an Aeonic Effect of metaphysics.  It will only serve to advance the goofiness and perniciousness of New Age, gurus, and the occult while making a mockery of the Eonic Model, and completely gutting anything that was of value there to begin with.  I don’t want to see that happen, and see Landon’s work be completely trashed, dismissed, and shuffled away as a result. … Nobody else wins when that happens; just the Gurdjieff element … Just the occult new agers, whose object I expect is to do exactly that.  Gurdjieff: “1”, Landon’s Eonic Effect: “0” …

I like John for his ideas.  I like his work, and I enjoy and find his material quite useful on historical topics, evolutionary issues, and philosophy. But I don’t trust New Age nor its proponents, some of whom are being given a mouthpiece and a forum on Darwiniana. So for now, I’ll steer clear of it and only occasionally cover its posts from time to time.  They have the floor and they’re on their own there from now on. It’s better that way.  Landon can handle his own audience and its leanings.  I just hope their New Age proclivities and agenda don’t run roughshod over what he’s been attempting to do with his writings on evolution and history.  Maybe I’m wrong about it all, but I have my doubts about all this stuff there lately and where it’s all heading.

New Age ruins everything!  I just pray John’s work here isn’t its latest casualty.

Mission Priority: Defusing the Metaphysics Bomb

12 Dec

Our A-1 Mission Priority:  Defusing the Metaphysics Bomb


Don’t get me wrong, I like John Landon’s work ala the Eonic Effect, Darwiniana, and The Gurdjieff Con.  The material’s first rate and John’s done a stupendous job tying in world history to evolution and critiquing the gurus.  My beef: … and it’s my own personal beef about it, it’s ended up giving a pass to the New Age I don’t believe is justified. Exempting some rare breed of ‘enlightened’ buddhas from the guru critique isn’t helping matters when it’s this very metaphysics of buddhahood/guru mysticism that’s created the problem to begin with; and the gurus are making wind off this very phenomenon with their hi jinx.  Enough already.  This fluff is where the gurus are drawing their power in reserve.  Cut it off at the source; admit some other agency for your ‘enlightenment’ or risk exposing your flank to the Chopra-magic nonsense.

Maybe its psychological-noumenal, maybe it’s something else – a metaphorical expression, a philosophical analogy, or pointing to some natural agency we’re not quite familiar with yet (but with a common connection to matter and physics) – but understand – if you say it’s metaphysical or soul-related <in a mystical sense> , this opens you up to fairy tale scenarios about the world (i.e., Santa Claus, elves dancing on the lawn) … Where’s the line drawn?  What’s the criterion for distinguishing the world of fractals from the world of fantasy?  …

The gurus are making mint off this stuff, … and it’s time we defused their metaphysics bomb before it blows up in our faces.  That’s all I want us to do – get clear on what it is we’re talking about here with Buddhism and philosophical considerations of natural phenomena/noumenal principles.  Because, if we don’t – the damage from this is going to be significant.

The Reality:  people aren’t going to know “up” from “down” once this “quantum consciousness/ mysticism” train crashes at the station.  Guru psy-ops has done its dirty work.  The runaway train of magical metaphysics is bearing down on that of an equally questionable instrumentalist science, and the effect on a clear human understanding of the world is going to be catastrophic in terms of legitimate scientific inquiry and philosophical discourse. …  (It’s already in the cross-hairs, and we’re nearing impact!) …

It’s time we cleaned up the mess … What do we mean by “soul” in the buddhist context and “noumena” in philosophy in a world of quarks, gluons, and photons?  That’s what I’m asking here.

Answer that, and we’re halfway there to defusing the Metaphysics Bomb of the gurus and gurudom.

Inspiration is for Everyone

11 Dec

Inspiration is for Everyone (Not Just for the Gifted Few)


“What I really want to say is that we should have a sense of humility and an acknowledgment that inspirational freethought is a luxury. It’s an unfortunate fact of the world that optimism and hope isn’t possible for everyone. Rather than trying to impose happiness and hope on others based on some limited perspective, the fact that hope is scarce in the world should drive us to do something about it.”


Calling “Inspiration” a “Privilege”

This is concerning to me.  Yes, not everyone has the opportunity to truly appreciate a sunrise, listen to beautiful music, or revel in the sights and sounds of nature.  That’s true.  But saying inspiration is a “privilege.”  It just doesn’t set well.

A Privilege.  From Whom?  For What?  And to Whom?

My problem is the word “privilege” and what it connotes.  Inspiration (and its sister idea, appreciation) isn’t something endowed from on high.  It’s something everyone should be able to enjoy (even if they can’t always given their particular circumstances in life).

But to say it’s a privilege indicates some special people are being gifted with it, while the rest of the poor folks in the world aren’t.

I’m not sure I buy that.  It’s not about the endowed betters of humanity getting something the rest of the unwashed masses in society aren’t. It’s more about such individuals having the occasion to partake of something we all (to a greater or lesser extent) have equal access to in life from birth by/through our common humanity and our shared human nature.

And while it is true some have greater means to it than others, this isn’t a reflection on their being a better quality of person than other people.  It’s more a question of whether they’re able to more easily access it than other people of lesser means due to socioeconomic status, physical or metal limitations, or other extenuating circumstances.

That’s all. Nothing to do whatsoever with life doling out its ‘blessings‘ to gifted elites and by unequal means to the so-called privileged few of the world.

Inspiration is for everyone.  But if we want to ensure everyone has equal access to it, we need to make sure the society is structured in a way everyone can adequately avail themselves of that blessing and the opportunity to appreciate the world in all its wonders regardless of whether they’re rich or poor,geniuses or not, etc.

Otherwise, this “privilege” … It’s just hollow and empty.  And if that’s what “inspiration” really entails, who needs it anyway.  The elites of the world are welcome to keep it to themselves.  The rest of us will get by without it.

Haven’t we learned the lesson of Dr. Seuss’s “The Sneetches yet?  … Guess not.  Too bad.   It’s to our own [bad] credit as a society and as human beings in the world that we haven’t.

We can do better. But until we fix the problems in our society, will we?  That’s the question!  Our choice is before us.  Which way will we turn?

(A World of) Uncreated Magnificence

24 Oct

When you live in universe of ‘chaotic’ complexity and ‘self-organization’ as science today understands these principles, you don’t need an intelligent designer to finely-tune creation. Nature and life comes to order on its own without the need for a separate designer and design.  The following two videos express this sentiment nicely.  Hope you enjoy them.

Global Warming is Real. There’s No Turning Back.

16 Oct


Global Warming is Real and There is No Turning Back


Global Warming is real.  There can be no denying it.  But where we go from there is an open question.

The indisputable fact is that climate change is happening.  What remains up in the air however is how human beings relate to it, what the actual contribution of people to the problem is, and how/if it can be fixed.

It’s happening.  That’s certain.  Average temperatures are increasing and we are beginning to see the effects in terms severe weather extremes, the polar ice caps melting, and the recording setting dry spells and droughts occurring in the United States and elsewhere this past year building up to today.

However, what’s the “cause?”  The “real” “cause” in a precise scientific and epistemological sense.  Not merely the “antecedent” or “conditional” of it, but the real “agency” or “dynamic” that’s actually making global warming and climate change happen.  It can’t be “humanity in the ontological sense” because global warming as we know it today didn’t always exist and we have the oft-mentioned data to prove it. And yet what kind of human activity would “cause” climate change?  The widespread, modern, industrial kind pumping out heat trapping chemicals like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, that’s what.

And, yet, this still doesn’t completely address the “cause” question.  What “causes global warming?” The dynamic of heat-trapping chemicals reacting with the natural processes of our world’s ecosystem and its climatic cycles.  The dynamic itself is the true “cause” of “global warming” and its opposite number is in the effect of a warming atmosphere.

So why say this?  And am I just hairsplitting here?  … I’d say no.

The reason I’d say no is that only by identifying the actual and precise cause of global warming can we truly assess how to deal with the problem and take proper action to remedy it.

Humans/human activity are “precipitants” to modern global warming, but not its “cause” per se.  They are catalysts to an already finely balanced environmental system that doesn’t take too much as it is to be overtaxed.  Contemporary human beings by their activities and modern technology have overloaded the scales and tipped that balance in favor of global warming and the greenhouse effect.

There’s no quick-fix to climate change.  There no easy policy solution to global warming.  And to imagine we can simply “reverse” it and go back to some sort of golden age before contemporary times when we didn’t have this happening and before we industrialized, thereby ushering in a new better future for ourselves without the specter of humanly precipitated climate change/global warming, is far-fetched.

It’s not going to happen.  We’ll have discovered the legendary Fountain of Youth before it does.

In all likelihood, we won’t turn back the clock on global warming. Nor can we reverse course.  We’re stuck with it, and the we best we can do now is learn to live with it.  We’re going to have to learn to manage the consequences of climate change in our daily lives and for our societies and the greater world.  We’ll have to develop technologies for dealing with the fallout of climate change; but at this point the irrevocable damage is done.

Global Warming is real and there’s no turning back.