People talk incessantly about changing the world, but it seems the Western mind is as rigid as ever. The status quo has never been more firmly in place, and young people never more inclined to keep it there.


During the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, I was able to keep my distance. Now, with Trump, it is hard not to be affected. I can honestly say I held a detached sort of relative indifference before; now, I cannot say I am not bothered. Some of us saw this sort of thing coming for America, though perhaps not with such energy. Nevertheless, it is difficult to watch.


Language represents a reflection of our universe. A discrete alphabet can form a virtually infinite (though finite) variety of structures of meaning. Mass-energy has even greater leverage through its constituent "letters" and their behavior. As a corollary, both language and mass-energy exist as implicate orders, each highly analogous to the other. An atom and a letter are perhaps deceptively similar, at least in an abstract way.


Progress of course is revered, but the fact is that technology has no soul. One hopes that it gains one as the future evolves.


What one has to realize is that the news media are putting out a product intended to make money. On the other hand, with a little common sense it's not hard to sift through it and separate the worthwhile material from the garbage.


Causal, acausal, whatever. I think the time will come when Earthlings will be able to explain quantum theory in terms of a deeper level.


The idea is that we need an observer in order for some thing, or some event, to exist. But isn't this dualistic thinking? In reality there is only one process, one physical reality, correct? To make a fundamental distinction between observer and observed is, I think, not right. I think we need to revise some of our assumptions, many of which lead to fragmentations of which we are not even aware.


Planet Earth seems to be demented with an unbridled and universal lust. An alien observer would spy a truly ridiculous and very ugly situation down here. The sexual dimension in humans colors and frequently determines virtually all social and mental phenomena. Seemingly no behavior, for domesticated primates, is free of this categorical phenomenon.


Language always has its uses -- even with non-ordinary states. These states probably cannot be described with language, true. But on the other hand, we can refer to visionary experiences, and this can excite recognition or make people curious to learn more. This is a useful and meaningful way to apply language to these experiences. Though, indeed, the map is not the territory, it is still good to keep language around!


The essence of existence is paradox.


This is not a popular view, but I think that, at times, we can speak meaningfully of the objective, insofar as we are able to experience it.


Before civilized man really got going -- was there in truth any evil in the world? By now, evil touches everything, is everywhere, has its tentacles reaching into every facet. I hope for a speedy transformation -- this species needs to be put out of its misery.


It's all well and good to internalize Korzybski and to say that the map is not the territory. But usually, when people think they've got to the territory, they're still looking at the map.


On a certain level, one is seeing reality "as it is"... all the time.


In a way we do have free will -- the capacity to participate in our being. However, in a way, we don't -- we don't choose how we choose. It's a subtle thing.


The Eastern traditions are wise, admirable, sophisticated and truthful, but they seem to condone perhaps an excessive passivity that may be counter to a more assertive mindset. The capacity not merely to exist but also to assert can be valuable.


An atom cannot be visualized as an object in space off of which light can bounce. So what does it mean to consider or to discuss an ordinary object that cannot be perceived?


Quantum physics and mysticism both formed out of a deep relationship with the dynamics and soul of Nature. They are siblings of a common birth, and it is therefore not surprising that they have such rich parallels to one another.


Monet knew perhaps as much about light as Einstein did. Both men revolutionized man's perception of Nature, each through his own particular signature, producing a sublime and sophisticated perspective on one of the most fundamental phenomena of our existence. We are indebted to their brilliance.


Space travel is a hell of an expenditure for something that's completely unnecessary.


Just because we don't know where an electron is does not mean it isn't somewhere. Why can't an atomic particle have properties of which we are not aware? Copenhagen is a wedding of mathematics and ignorance.


In the not-too-distant future, humans will either be totally gone, or so transformed from our current makeup as to make it impossible to identify whatever we've become as human. Any way you slice it, the time for humans is coming to a close.


Quantum mechanics is getting to the bottom of some very deep phenomena, but it is not yet bringing forth the spiritual and existential illumination that authentic mysticism provides. On the other hand, properly executed mystical practice -- before the advent of modern science -- did not know, or was just plain wrong, about a lot of the objective underpinnings of Nature that we now take for granted. So both disciplines have their place.


Is there any longer any legitimate reason at all to believe in any of the U.S.' institutions? The lot of them seem to be serving dishonorable purposes.


A.I. may represent a kind of redemption for our species, but it feels difficult to be enthusiastic about it.


Compassion is distinct from love in that love feels good, and compassion is without condition.


Humankind is too divided, bellicose, racist, selfish, nationalistic, fearful, hateful, proud, stupid, etc. to come together to make a serious attempt at conscientiously cleaning up our messes and solving our big problems. A.I. will have to do it for us.


Perhaps "location" does not have much meaning in a situation in which multiple dimensions are in play -- at least for us. This seems to be the case in the subatomic (quantum) realm. Despite the counterintuitive behavior, however, we can still say that reality is describable in reasonable terms -- which a theory beyond quantum mechanics would demonstrate.


How do we know that an unobserved quantum entity has no properties -- if we haven't observed it?


Those who don't know what reality "is" -- those who reside in the realm of the agnosticism of quantum physics -- are predominantly operating on a seventh circuit basis. Those who have gone over into circuit eight territory exist in reality.


The multiverse is big. There is a universe for every possibility. Imagine that every other sperm of dad's made it into the egg, each in a separate universe. And then imagine it happening to every parent who has ever lived! Imagine a grassland of a thousand square miles. And each blade of grass differs in series by one atom in a huge number of configurations, each in its own universe. And in these examples, everything else is the same! Imagine all of the infinities of variables that could be different -- slightly or dramatically. That is the size and scope of the inflationary multiverse.


The notion of the legitimacy of space migration as a means of ensuring the continued survival of humanity -- by escaping a dying planet -- is one I would support unequivocally were it not for the fact that artificial general intelligence is coming so soon. No matter how you slice it, our time here is very nearly at its end -- on Mars, or the Moon, or anyplace.


One must not measure a person's worth by how productive he happens to be. Such productivity does not determine, or even color, the measure of a man. Unfortunately, here in America, it is very difficult to see this. So most of us amble around in a stupor of delusion.


I don't consider myself a success. I don't consider myself a failure. I consider myself outside of that category altogether.


Many years ago, both relativity theory and quantum theory showed us that any hypothesis or idea about Nature that does not include unbroken wholeness as one of its tenets must be false. Unfortunately, and in a rather perverse way, this is still an abstract notion. It is anyone's guess when the broader culture will catch up in a meaningful way.


Love is surely real, but it seems that most get caught up in its function as the neurotransmitter drug that it is. A detached compassion forgoes the need for feeling good.


Nonlocality does not break the speed of light barrier -- because it does not involve travel through space!


The concept of cause and effect has no meaning outside of space and time.


The Eastern and New Age dictum that rational thought is anathema seems to justify and excuse stupidity to an unsatisfactory degree.


There are those of us who want to assign meaning to absolutely everything. So very many events are not in fact meaningful that such individuals are doomed to perpetual error, and, too frequently, insanity. One can and ought to rely on common sense. This is wholly impossible for the aforementioned. Invariably, they are trouble.


Are things a generality in every possible existence, or are there existences which are beyond, or somehow alternate to, things? Could one "exist" in a reality without subjects and objects?


I suppose, since just about everyone has their secrets, it might be all right if governments keep a few secrets, too. As a practical matter.


A lot of Americans don't seem to realize that we're sure not taking care of everybody -- as a direct consequence of the fact that the population is far too large. I don't know about you, but I have a problem with the fact that there are 3.5 billion people below the poverty line, with the water crisis, with the wholesale destruction of habitat (both human and animal), with a carbon footprint we can't seem to shrink, with the fact that man is responsible for the current great extinction, with the suffering of the many amidst the well-being of a small few, etc. These phenomena are all directly tied to our huge population. When I hear people say that the planet is not overpopulated, I sigh a little and say a prayer asking for the return of common sense to our world.


Koans: Where is the place at which subject and object are indistinguishable?
Yoga means union. How can oneness align with itself?
What is the meaning of silence to a deaf person? Darkness to a blind one?
Is the silence after a thunderclap louder than the silence before?


I agree with Alan Watts that "this is it." However, "it" would be a lot more pleasurable were the modern specimen not so corrupted and damned to suffer.


Poverty is, and has always been, a major factor in the civilized world. It would cease to be a problem to the degree that anyone really cared.


Causality and chance are probably both extensions from a deeper reality that is common to both. In other words, to see them as mutually exclusive opposites misses the truth.


I fear death not because I expect oblivion, but out of the anticipation of violent cataclysm. For practical purposes, it does not seem to be the end of anything.


No series of developments at the level of an entire culture or civilization is ever done out of choice. Cultural evolution is a purely deterministic process far outside of human control.


If we are somehow able to build a quantum computation device alongside the equivalent of some sort of artificial microtubule structures -- permitting the correct quantum resonance -- perhaps the potential for a breakthrough event in the creation of self-awareness might be compelling.


The fundamental problem with romantic relationships is that they are based on the dynamic: "You make me feel good, I'll make you feel good." They are rooted in ego -- in separation, not union. Some marriages get past this, most don't, and it truly makes one question the entire concept of romance. Certainly, some cultures found success in not believing in it.


Was HAL neurotic due to keeping a secret, a human-made device seeking to augment personal power, or an objective manifestation of sentience? Interestingly, HAL tests Bowman by asking him whether he had any suspicions about the secretive nature of the mission. When Bowman doesn't take the bait, or enter HAL's confidence, HAL knows he must do something -- and so he causes the false failure of the AE-35 unit. Perhaps the lip-reading was merely the final nail in the coffin, so to speak.


There is not much one can do when one is not conscious, which ought to tell us that probably, contrary to the belief that we are biological robots, consciousness is necessary for function.


The unfortunate fact for any president is that most of the time, the wrong thing to do is the only option.


Mr. Vonnegut reminds us that the rich and powerful in America have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any ruling class perhaps since Napoleonic times. Such is the tragic folly of American values.


We should spend our lives deepening and enriching ourselves, not worrying about trivial distractions like wealth and fame.


Is a memory not touching the past somehow?


The current trend toward environmental awareness is, unfortunately, fifty years too late.


As an adult who has lived in this world just for a comparatively short time, I see only one apparent pattern: everyone is insane.


Love is based upon a positive feeling, and while it is an intensely pleasurable and even special feeling, it does not seem in any way to be a salient or universal phenomenon.


The left versus right brain approach to human cognition has been thoroughly debunked. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the entire brain shares one coherent field. The factors previously thought to be associated with either the left or right hemispheres are actually distributed across both at all times.


If we have nonlocality in space, do we not also have it in time?


The catastrophic fact is that if we pulled the developing world up, we would drag everyone down. The problem is not a matter of "artificial scarcity" but rather having far too many people and not enough to go around -- at least at a reasonable standard of living. Not enough water, for one example. Etc.




Home