Nearly every night I move my body around symmetrical lines and curves while dripping sweat. After, I will breathe, sitting still in silence, in centered ways. In different ways. I will breathe until my mind is empty of all things that it can be. It is good, feeling this.

This night thoughts wandered in, like ghostly shapes around a boundless periphery. There is a very fine line between life and death, even when we are safe. The ghostly thought shapes made me wonder what you thought about this.

There is a subtle yet profound difference between having a capacity or having an ability. That difference defines and restricts you, as you consider such questions. The conscious mind lumbers through modifications in an effort to know, and so control. Or, perhaps, to wall away from sight.

This is why I thought, this maple bar is far too intense in its sweetness. Its experience is unreal, far beyond the pleasure of the blueberries just a moment before. The sweetness and texture was a visceral overload, like a bomb that blasts your attention toward meaningless things that always want more. I thought, I prefer the quiet flavor of a sweet yogurt with mint.

I imagined, this must be like sky diving, or various other thrill-seeking pursuits. A visceral overload intended to reveal just what living is like. Or so it is said. It is telling, however, how subdued and introspective these people can become, later in life. Something led them, eventually, to the stillness of blueberries.

Sometimes it is difficult knowing what is sacred and what is not.

I wonder if it is like Christians, proud to be killing in war. What else are we supposed to do, they ask. As the terrorists are getting ready to kill us, should we be all kum-ba-yah? Is it not the teaching of Christ, your Lord, that you should die, rather than kill another? Don’t be a lawyer with me. If nothing else, then yes, you should be all kum-ba-yah.

And you Jews of Israel. God told you that all people, in all their diversity, exist so that you can better know yourself. What is it that you are learning about yourself now? Just look how high the Christians have raised you up.

At least the Muslims can be understood better, on a more human level, as a people who rise up to fight against invaders and pillagers. But this religion, too, has been co-opted as another tool that guides the modifications of mind toward the unholy.

Ah, well. I suppose the oldest religion in the world might be right. “The faith of each is in accordance with one’s own nature.” What we see now is the nature of people, not their better spirit. Where is the belief that people claim to have? “Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is.” I can only assume that, though they say otherwise, they have no true belief.

Rather, “Living in the abyss of ignorance, the deluded think themselves blessed. Attached to works, they know not God.” Our acts, and their acts, are obscene. “As one acts and conducts himself, so does he become. The doer of good becomes good. The doer of evil becomes evil.”

There is such a thin barrier between life and death, existence and non-existence. We are all so unique. Everything is so unique. The scale of this is staggering for the mind, yet blissful for the heart. They are one, and the same.

“The wise man should surrender his words to his mind;
and this he should surrender to the Knowing Self;
and the Knowing Self he should surrender to the Great Self;
and that he should surrender to the Peaceful Self.”

I suppose doing that is harder than killing someone and then asking for forgiveness. Or conjuring through the mind some peculiar sense of duty, that flies in the face of both rationality and the true heart. But it is always harder to walk the walk, than to talk the talk. We know the difference, though, don’t we?

The difference is the blueberries. It is the silence, with only your breath. It is that other person who might be your friend, or someone you love. Other spirits who breathe. They are remarkable. They are beautiful. They are everything.

“The little space within the heart is as great as the vast universe. The heavens and the earth are there, and the sun and the moon and the stars. Fire and lightening and winds are there, and all that now is and all that is not.”

These are all words from the oldest of religions. From the most ancient civilization. Judaism and its offshoots of Christianity and Muslim are barely teenagers in comparison. Rowdy, unruly, and dangerous teenagers. Selfish teenagers. Thugs.

It is time now, I think. We have to grow up. We have to start taking care of each other — to help and to share. To enjoy blueberries, and all the other little things. To put aside the maple bars. To focus on that which allows our existence to be meaningful. Doing so is not an act of destruction. On the contrary, it is an act of creation. It allows us to see and feel the simple yet overwhelming importance of another. And in doing so, it becomes an act of creation, within ourselves.

“Creation is only the projection into form of that which already exists.”

GNU/Linux is an operating system that lets you interact with your computer’s hardware. Microsoft’s Windows is also an OS. So is Apple’s OSX. The article I will be taking as a reference is called OS shoot-out: Windows vs. Mac OS X vs. Linux published at InfoWorld.

You might infer from the title, which evokes images of people with guns trying to kill each other, discussions of OS superiority are generally heated. And also, since people are not actually firing guns at each other, you can see that the title is purposefully provocative, in the “best” ad/marketing tradition.

As expected, the content of the article is woefully short on facts, while being long on broad generalisations. This doesn’t bother me as long as the generalisations can be traced back to fact, and are not sloppy in what they lead the reader toward. I’m hoping to help cut through some of the prevailing marketing deception to give a clearer picture that is not biased.

First, it is important to know that Windows is made by a company named Microsoft. OS X is made by a company named Apple. GNU/Linux is not made by a company, but rather by hundreds (and I’m sure thousands) of companies and individuals around the world.

OS X is based upon Unix. Unix can (sloppily) be thought of as a very well-designed and academic way of doing things in your computer. GNU/Linux is also based upon Unix, and carries the “tradition” much further. Windows is not based upon Unix.

Apple and Microsoft’s primary goal is to make money. It has to be, by law. GNU/Linux’s primary goal is to do the best stuff, in the best way possible. As such, Apple and Microsoft care a great deal about the percentage of the OS market they dominate, while GNU/Linux has no care whatsoever about any market share. That’s not entirely true, though. Some GNU/Linux people see growing market share as an indication that what they have contributed is something as beautiful and wonderful as they imagined it was, while other GNU/Linux people will see their growing market share as being good progress in their effort to “free” people from the domination of purely corporate interests. The mindset is different. Apple and Microsoft development is driven by a strategy that wants to dominate the marketplace of users. GNU/Linux development is driven by a strategy that wants to create the best thing possible.

Everyone knows that Microsoft has a long history of doing bad and bully-ing things, while many people believe that Apple is an altruistic, cool and good company. The truthier thing is, Microsoft has been so bad and mean that their gigantic marketing department could not even alter the public’s perception entirely, to make them seem good. Apple focuses their marketing on the sexy and cool, while their bad behavior goes largely unnoticed. And from the fallout of these marketing wars, GNU/Linux gets stuck with an impression of freakish computer geniuses doing arcane stuff that is well beyond the reach of most users. Or rebels using piece-meal computer equipment fastened with duct tape who just hack.

Don’t believe the hype. The InfoWorld article suggests that Apple’s OS X may be “the best operating system available.” Yet, at the same time, they claim that the growing adoption of OS X within business is not because of IT department choices, but rather users who push the IT guys until get it. This suggests an entrenchment in Microsoft products within IT departments that Apple is working very hard to overcome. I’m happy seeing that, because Microsoft-based products have a tendency to grow considerably in cost, as you need to add functionality that other platforms like Apple’s and GNU/Linux, already have.

From the IT department’s standpoint, heterogeneous operating system environments are a problem. First, you must have people who know about each different platform. Second, there must be a way for those platforms to work together. This is where standards are important. Just like people, no matter what background you come from, if you can speak the same language, you can get stuff done. Microsoft has a long history of trying to take control of language then twisting certain words and phrases so that only people from the land of Microsoft can understand it. This influences people to wish they were from the land of Microsoft. Microsoft calls this subversion, enhancement. The GNU/Linux people call this Microsoft tactic, Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish. They seem to attempt this tactic with nearly anything created that they do not control. Fortunately, people’s creativity appears to outpace Microsoft’s capabilities to wage this tactic on every new development. Now, they must be more selective about their targets.

Standards are also important to enable the complexities of various computer hardware to function together, as a whole unit. Apple is very aware of this. It is why they choose, very selectively, which hardware goes into their Mac systems. It is also why you can only purchase OS X and run it on Apple-purchased computers. If you try making OS X run on hardware other than Apple-purchased hardware, you may well find yourself sued by Apple. Apple claims these draconian tactics are in the best interest of people, because it assures that OS X will always run beautifully, since you can only run it on Apple-purchased hardware. It’s certainly in the best interest of Apple. Microsoft doesn’t care what hardware on which you run Windows. Neither does GNU/Linux.

Now, suppose you need to do something that’s never been done before. In both OS X and Windows, you can, to a degree. But Microsoft and Apple only allow you access to the way your computer functions in limited ways. A Microsoft or Apple employee will have had to imagine already something similar to what you wish to accomplish, if even in abstract terms. You only can access your computer in ways they allow and control. In GNU/Linux, you have absolutely no restrictions, and you can see or change everything, if you choose to.

This is why strange, new things are often created using GNU/Linux. I was amazed on my tour of astronomical observatories that the use of GNU/Linux was so prevalent. The world’s fastest supercomputers, the Large Hadron Collider, little microwave communication towers or sensing stations - anything that might require very low level access to a computer hardware system - Linux is likely the best choice. Not always. But when it is not, Windows or OS X certainly is not. Unless you are designing your new computer hardware system specifically for Windows or OS X.

Which brings us to hardware drivers. Hardware drivers are pieces of programming that live, pretty much, between your OS’s “brain”, and a given piece of hardware that must communicate with that brain. Sometimes strange hardware can avoid the necessity of having a special driver, if that hardware follows standards. But if it does not follow standards, or cannot, then the people who made the hardware are generally the people who write the driver. Almost always they will write a Windows driver. Often they will write an OS X driver, now that Apple has gained more market share. Rarely will they write a GNU/Linux driver. Two very notable exceptions to this are the primary video card manufacturers, Nvidia and ATI. They have been creating GNU/Linux drivers for a long time.

As the InfoWorld article points out, hardware driver availability is a headache in Linux. There is some truth to this, but there are also benefits to this, as well as headaches. When a company produces a hardware product and does not write a Linux driver, it is usually only a matter of time before an employee of that company, or a Linux user somewhere in the world who likes that hardware, writes one themselves, and then gives it out to the rest of the world. Once this is done, Linux forever supports that hardware. Here is the benefit in that:

My workstation computer system has a few pieces of strange hardware. When I install Windows on it, I have to go hunting for the disks that came with that hardware, so that I can install the drivers, so my computer can boot with Windows. It sometimes takes me a long time to find those driver installation disks, and I have to hope that they are still good. However, with Linux, I don’t have to go find any disks, because Linux knows about the hardware. The drivers have become part of Linux. Apple faces the same problem as Microsoft in this, if you purchased any hardware that did not come from Apple, for your Apple computer system. It is far less effort, and fewer steps, for me to install, say, Ubuntu, than it is to install Windows. And I can’t install OS X, because my hardware was not purchased from Apple - and even if I did, the nice Mac guy might come chasing me with an ax.

But the key point is fundamentally a perceptual one. What is reality, and what is marketing? It’s not always easy to tell in a technically complex field. The InfoWorld article mentions virtualization software, where OS X users and Linux users can actually run programs written for Windows. However, they also say, “Because Linux distributions run on Windows-compatible hardware, it’s straightforward to use desktop virtualization software.” This makes it sound like GNU/Linux is trying to run on hardware meant for Windows, and mentions nothing else. Actually, Microsoft’s Windows runs only on Intel’s x86 hardware platform (and derivatives) while GNU/Linux runs on this, and many others — even Apple’s former hardware platform, before Apple, also, moved to this “Windows-compatible” hardware. GNU/Linux systems are not limited by hardware platforms the way Apple and Microsoft are.

For the end user, who normally purchases computers based upon the x86 platform, and yes, that includes Apple now, that flexibility is not so important. What is important is being able to use the computer, in ways that matter to you. Similarly important, to some, is “doing the right thing” by not supporting companies that seek to control what you can and cannot do.

I know, from an IT perspective, it is far less expensive and much easier to maintain a huge fleet of GNU/Linux systems. But as IT people, we are there for the end users. Most of them have no idea what using GNU/Linux can be like. Many now know what using OS X can be like, and they are asking for more. As always, the best place to look is individual experience because it reflects the diversity of need. The rhetoric of marketing wars, or “shoot-outs”, distract from reality.

Explore. Have an open mind. Educate yourselves. Learn to distinguish between marketing and reality. The best choice is not always the best choice. Nor is the worst, the worst. Openness, and open minds. Trust. Intent. Even purpose. Motives.

GNU/Linux does not mean that everything should be free, as in never make money. It means, what is out there, ought to be free, as in liberated, not hidden, and no hidden agendas, either. That distinction has taken a very long time to settle in, and probably will take a very long time more.

Think of it as a big, Merry Christmas gift, that will always be there, year ’round, waiting for you to open, under that big as the world tree. It’s a gift for people, as well as businesses. And for some reason, it’s a gift that makes a lot of people shoutin’ mad. Strange, isn’t it?

I’ve put the cookies off for far too long, saying more than I intended, and not nearly enough. Merry Christmas to those of you I won’t see or talk to. This isn’t a very holiday thing to write, I suppose. A bit of a digression, too, though not completely, from the material consciousness/spirit issue lately. But Merry Christmas anyway! I’ll never get all this cooking done now… damn distractions. Oh, Merry Christmas!

Right now the yard is covered in thick snow. It is a world he has never known. When he goes outside, he runs, back and forth wildly, in leaps to keep his chest above the snow. Then he stops, bends forward, pushing his head deep into the white powder, and does a somersault, flopping onto his back, then kicking himself around in circles. Then he stops, jumping up completely still and alert, looks quickly from side to side, then rolls onto his back again, rolling and kicking snow into the air while snorting. Again, I don’t know why. I tell him that he’s crazy, but he doesn’t seem to mind.

He also has obsessions, namely tennis balls. Always, he carries at least one around with him. He even drops one into his bowl as he eats, apparently because it’s all good. He can hold them between his paws, while he’s laying down, his stubby claws looking more like fingers, wrapping around the little ball. He even rests his paws on them, slowing rolling them around under his touch.

Whenever I come upstairs from down, there is at least one tennis ball on the steps, waiting for me. I am expected to bring it to him. When I stand near the bottom of the steps, doing dishes or making coffee, I almost always hear a thwunk, thwunk, thwunk as a ball slowly bounces down the steps. Looking up, he’s laying at the top of the stair with his paws hanging over, staring down at me with a big grin, waiting for me to throw the ball back up to him. It’s irresistible. I throw it up to him, where he catches it, chews it for a moment, then sets it on the ground between his paws. Moments later, he hits it with the top of his nose, sending it bouncing back down the steps to me, with that silly grin.

There is existence and awareness in that creature, that is not illusion, I have no doubt. There is a soul, as certainly as we might have one. This is beyond most forms of Christianity, and many other religions as well. In this, at least, those religions are wrong. And so are people who believe cats can even compare.

He has a darker side as well, manifest through pathological jealousy. Any other dog who dares comes near to say hello, he intercepts, and shoves firmly away, but in the friendliest of ways. He is the only one that will have our affection.

There is even self-sacrifice. Hating riding in the car, he lays down stiff and motionless in the back seat, completely unresponsive. It isn’t terror or sickness. It’s more like the ultimate in “grin and bear it”. So why, you might ask, is he forced to ride in the car? And the answer would be, he isn’t. He insists on going because it’s a much better alternative than you leaving without him.

I think it is likely, in his dog brain, that he has no awareness differentiating himself from humans. Laying down next to him to pet his head, you will find his paw on your own head, which is not always pleasant, when claws are loving torn down your cheek.  Nor always, your arm held firmly between his jaws when he is exceedingly happy about something. He has learned to curb his enthusiasm, to a degree, but not enough, by intent, to squelch his personality.

Sometimes he needs to be reminded, not of his status, but of his limitations; those sometimes arbitrary-seeming rules of conduct. For example, the table is not his place to eat. The counter tops are sacred places, with strange and wondrous things to smell and eat, but never to trespass upon. And all of this is accomplished through the two soul-crushing sounds for which everything must stop. “No!” “Bad!”

Happily for him, almost everything else is good. It is a peculiar and simple life, almost always coming back to tennis balls. There are times when he brings two or three in his mouth to you, laying them in your lap, wide-eyed and waiting for you to throw them. But other times, when you might be in the mood to play, he will hide them from you. And still others, he will hoard them between his paws, in an iron grip. He prefers sharing the tennis balls on his own terms.

But, being smarter than he, I have discovered ways to circumvent his particularities. I keep a spare ball, all my own, out of his sight. One bounce of that ball, anywhere in the house, and he will completely forget about any balls of his own. One bounce, knowing that another ball exists that is not his, and he will fixate, absolutely, on making it his own. It does not matter that he already had two or three balls. If you have one, he must have it. I have learned to exploit that laser-sighted greed to swoop in and steal the balls he left unguarded. He knows this trick by now. I can see it in his face, when he hears me bounce that ball, out of his sight. He knows I will end up with his, and hesitates. But another bounce will drive him over the top, where he simply must have it. And then I’ve won.

But other times he will just bring a mouthful of balls to you, laying them in your lap. Or sometimes he spreads them out on the floor in front his face, where he lays with his chin on the ground, staring at you until you come take them to play. If you stand near them, he will spring to his feet, crouched in a serious four-legged kung fu pose, completely motionless, waiting to catch the ball with his paws if you happen to kick one instead of picking it up.

It is far more interesting when a relationship is not domineering. Personalities blossom, in unexpected ways.

Here, the Fourth of July is very loud, with fireworks shooting up into the sky in any direction you look, with the occasional bright white flash of some deafening explosion. Jake loves the Fourth of July. He is the only dog I’ve known to love it. He runs out across the yard, barking at the lights and sounds, in a happy, not at all anxious way. And when he is hot from running, like the rest of the summer, he will lay in his little plastic swimming pool of water, rolling around in near ecstasy.

After balls, water is his second love. Even though he cannot sink his teeth into it, he tries. When you pick up the hose, he runs toward you, expecting to be squirted. He requires it. You cannot expect to use water from the hose without this dog finding a way to get in it. Even strong jets of icy water he will lay down in, as if it is the most nonintoxicating and pleasant massage.  Short bursts he will bite at, trying to catch, or bat at with his paws. He is a strange dog.

Did I mention he does yoga? He loves to stretch, and loves help stretching further. Maybe this is how he can so easily leap into the wheelbarrow with such balance. Perhaps that is why his paws are more like hands. Certainly his flexibility, strength and precision set him apart from most other dogs. Perhaps this is just the pride of a parent.

For my part, I have never thought of Jake as a dog. Well, consciously you must. But I give him the benefit of more. Actually, I try to do that with all dogs. And yes, even cats. Well, after that initial period of ignoring them completely until they put themselves at a disadvantage by making the first gesture of friendship. But where they might walk away, I’ll listen. Even though it’s questionable they deserve it, after such games. But not all dogs, do I think of, as more than dogs. Their characters can be radically shaped by we humans. To me, that is a nearly overwhelming consideration. But it is not, for all humans.

It is a peculiar thing, the spirit of an animal. And peculiar even ourselves, when we have such power over it, what we choose to exert in that dominion. It is something telling, as all acts, and all inactions, are confessions of ourselves.

I can say he is a bad dog. Or a good dog. And I determine all boundaries and structures of his world. But I forfeit that power, as much as I can. Instead, I choose to be one creature to another with him. Perhaps this is how he can be something more - how he can be such a strange and wonderful dog.

In a large way, this is because of my dad, by his example, or the voodoo that seeps in through the alchemy of families. It is a realization that gives me pause. Because, if I must admit many things, it gives me, perhaps, just a glimpse, of my own wheelbarrow.

You might be seeing me, standing in it now, from your perspective that encapsulates such creatures. But I can talk. And were I to, I would tell you, I am not feeling particularly clever. I like the wheelbarrow. It’s a little above the ground and it’s fun to balance. Even when I get scolded. Or laughed at. I mean, look at this, standing in the wheelbarrow. You glorious little lunatic! Yes, you.

And so we know, there are people who say, treating your dog as an equal is a bad thing. They say, they need the discipline, hierarchy and rule of the pack. They are happier that way. Well, it isn’t true. They need excrutiatingly honest and sincere interaction with you. That’s all. And yes, that is a far taller order.

You must do things that you normally would not. Particularly if you have never done them before. If you are the slightest bit curious, that is, or think that you should. Or feel that you must.

I’m not going to say why. Just do it. If it doesn’t harm anyone. Take a peek behind those corners, inside those dark closets and basements, and under those stones. Stick your toe in. Take a leap. You just have to.

I did something completely out of character a couple nights ago. Something that I never do. Well, that I haven’t done for a very, very long time. I felt like I should, but I didn’t really want to. Even the thought of it made me feel awkward and uncertain. But strangely, that awkwardness began to bother me in other ways: it should not feel awkward, nor should it make me feel uncertain. And that’s what convinced me over the hump. I decided to do it. I was going to pray.

I know! But I’m telling you, you have to be able to take your own advice. Do something crazy. I told Jeff’s aunt, who seems like this sweet, wonderful lady, that I would pray her hip replacement surgery would go well. It seemed a nice and innocuous thing to do. But it wasn’t long before I wanted to back out of that promise.

But how could I? Backing out of something like that is like killing a butterfly, just to be mean. Not that I would know. Then I thought, well, while I’m it, I guess I’ll throw in some bigger ticket items, like including soldiers and civilians in the prayer, too. It couldn’t hurt, and would give me more bang for the buck.

And as that night wore on, the impending bizarre event loomed heavier and heavier on the near horizon. Why was it was such a big deal? It irritated me that it was a big deal. Was it irrational, being so bothered by something so benign? Was it my rationality that was offended, eliciting an emotional response of dread? That didn’t even make sense. Sure, rationality ought to be dispassionate, but even when it’s not, getting dread from something like having to pray just didn’t make sense. After all, this was simply a task that needed doing. Cut and dried. Matter of fact. But for some reason, it was HUGE. This made no sense.

Eventually it was time. Lights out, cell phone positioned, I took off my clothes and climbed into bed. Eyes closed. Laying on my back. Darkness. Ok. Here we go…

Now, simultaneously and contradictorily, in both hubris and jest, which you Psychologically dominated people are welcome to erroneously interpret as false modesty, I say that a lesser man would have just played with himself and gone to sleep. Nobody would be the wiser, if I just skipped out on this praying thing. Sure, I might have to answer to someone asking questions, but it would be a minor lie. Laying there, considering, I was on the verge of doing just that. But somehow, it sucked me in. I had to do it. I was going to pray. It was just too weird. I had to.

Ok. Wriggle, wriggle. Eyes closed. Dark. Silence.

I become very aware of the Earth at times like this, and our movement through everything out toward the stars — at least in my imagination.

Ok. Pray. Ok… Umm… Ok. Uh… who do I talk to? Where? Do I just think words, or do I speak into the darkness? Ok. I don’t need to speak. Thinking the words would be better. I’m sure he’s psychic. Well, he or she. Or whatever.

But words are so narrow. God has to be way larger than that. I can send him whole big landscapes of thought, instead of just narrow little words. I just can open up everything I am, and broadcast it out there, like an Arecibo made of meat and electricity. I wonder if satellites can pick it up? Damn freaks who go into the military to be voyeurs. Then again, people just broadcast themselves on webcams…

Ok. Wait. A prayer. It’s simple. Just pray for the hip. And not to the Hindu pantheon either, because she’s Christian. Those Hindu gods wouldn’t care about her hip. But why not? But maybe I could be just kinda Hindu-ish and unite with the vibrational energy that permeates the universe and make it flow into her hip toward the future when she’d be in the hospital. Gads, but it might short out the operating room equipment.

Damnit. God. Pray to God. Ok. God. Big guy. Yup. Ok. “Um, hi God,” I thought at Him.

Oh, how stupid is that? The creator of all existence, at all scales, both huge and subatomic and vast, and all the crazy intricacies, and I’m going, “duh. Hi God.” I mean, I can’t just outright talk to him, right? I guess he could have invented English, and speaks it. Or he’s like connected into everything, and I don’t even have to talk, because he knows it all, and made it all.

Damn. Hmm. Well, maybe I can just lay here, and be cosmically connected to him, and he’ll know about the prayer. Yeah. Ok. Deep breath. Focus. God blob. God blob… ok.. like all over the place and around, everywhere. Christ, how do I tell something so huge to make some person’s hip be ok? I mean, if the hip is bad, isn’t that how it’s supposed to be? How arrogant of me to try changing that plan. Or maybe he likes bad things until we beg him to make them good. That’s not very nice. Yeah, that whole problem of Evil existing so prominently. And those weak arguments about free will being the reason for it. Bah!

Man, but that lady’s hip. She seemed so sweet and nice. They’re going to have to slice into her, shatter her hip into pieces, dig it out, and put some synthetic bones back in her. That sucks. I bet lots of people end up going through that. All kinds of nasty, terrible stuff as you get older. And even those soldiers. I wonder how many of those young guys had to get their hips replaced cuz they got blown up? Lucky to be alive I suppose. So many bodies and lives, really. Strangers. I wonder what their stories were like? Never will know now, I guess. Silly young humans. Killing people. Getting killed. With all the conceits and vulnerabilities you see, in same people out here, walking around at a market. People that can kill people. Or get their own bodies ripped open by others.

And it wasn’t long before I found myself lying there, in the Dark, and in the Silence, amazed at all the images and feelings moving through me. I told myself, I’m not there with any of those people — I don’t know know any of them. It doesn’t matter. And it became even more proundly sad. And I found myself wanting, more than anything, for them all to be better. For them to be lifted out of that. To be free.

Stupid prayers. It wasn’t even a prayer. Well, maybe. I don’t know. But I was done. It was no different from, during every day, when you stop all the silliness around you, just to absorb in the world - to let your existence touch you, how it will. Or the existences of others. I don’t want that burden lifted. I need to feel that weight. I need to work to lessen that burden, and not just for myself.

Maybe that’s something God told me, in his language. I wouldn’t presume. Maybe when you pray, you’re not supposed to talk, or ask for things. Maybe you’re supposed to just open up and listen. Maybe our whole lives are supposed to be one, ever-present prayer. Maybe that’s why I felt so awkward, going to ask for something.

I wonder what people ask for, in their prayers. Or if they even pray, just to pray. Just to listen.

I guess I don’t know how to pray any more. Or I can’t. I tried, though. And I heard something really huge. And I am still really, really sad.

That last piece

Here’s a reminder, too. I was criminally negligent in supporting the positions for those three main views of consciousness in the last piece, Am I Alive? I am working under the assumption there is a reason philosophy departments are small. Very intricate and in-depth discussions for each of those positions exist, and are easily accessible if you have an interest in the detail. Even more importantly, distilling those arguments into quick examples lets me be lazy, too.

In addition to being told definitively what consciousness actually was, I was also pointed to a fascinating project within IBM’s Cognitive Computing group. This project just received $5 million in funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the same agency that funded the creation of the Internet, and many other incredible (and dubious) things.

The award funds IBM’s proposal, “Cognitive Computing via Synaptronics and Supercomputing (C2S2)”, which will be the first step in fulfilling DARPA’s “Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics (SyNAPSE)” initiative. Another company, HRL Laboratories, which is owned by Boeing and General Motors received three times this amount. HRL Laboratories is also involved in DARPA’s Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System, and their Urban Reasoning and Geospatial Exploitation Technology (URGENT) program, which wants to revolutionize urban combat using three-dimensional object recognition.

Anyway, IBM has built a rat brain. Well, not really. They’re simulating one on a supercomputer. Neural networks were long considered the most promising path toward simulating cognitive functions with computational devices. That approach focuses upon the role of neurons in the brain. However, neurons actually account for a very small fraction of the brain’s circuitry. Most of the circuitry are synapses, which connect the neurons together. Many synapses are connected to a single neuron. In fact, IBM’s rat brain has 55 million neurons and 442 billion synapses. That’s pretty much the same as a real rat brain. In comparison, a human cortex has around 22 billion neurons and 176 trillion synapses.

The IBM rat brain is somewhat larger than a rat, though. Their rat brain requires a 32,768 processor supercomputer with 8 trillion bytes of memory. It consumes more energy than 1,000 typical households. That is one fat rat.

And alas, it will probably never be on par with a real rat. Real rat brains, like our own, operate asynchronously, with variable timing (frequencies) and ooze chemicals as well as electricity. Being biological, they are also adaptable and fault tolerant. And most importantly, memory is not so separate from the processing. Traditional computers always keep memory separate from the processor. Then again, rat brains don’t run Linux.

But the IBM folks are well aware of their limitations. This is an incubation project. Cognitive Computing differs significantly from traditional artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence identifies problems, then comes up with ways to address those problems programmatically. On the other hand, cognitive computing does the engineering first (by reverse-engineering the brain) and worries about the more programmatic problems later.

The supercomputer is used only as a simulation. The intention is to build chips and electronics with a similar structure like a brain. They then plan to ram it full of sensory input from sensors all over the world, to create a “world brain”. I tell ya, these military guys are crazy. The idea is actually to overload this brain with sensory input. Part of me is suspicious, thinking these guys are hoping to create a physical structure modeled after a brain, and then by flooding it with sensory data, it might just burst into life with some ability to perform cognitive functions on that data. Or maybe even come alive… No, they would never say that.

What they do not intend to create is an actual rat brain, or human brain. At least that’s what they are saying. But you know mad scientists, particularly when they’re working for the military. They want to create computers that can get closer to the efficiency and power of biological brains, and this is, to them, in large part a structural issue.

What is interesting, philosophically, is suppose they do create a synthetic human brain. Would any mind, or consciousness, that arose from this brain also be synthetic? Or, for that matter, what exactly does synthetic mean? If souls exist, what is mind without a soul? If mind, or consciousness, is simply an illusion, is there anything wrong with just shutting it off and dismantling it, after we turn it on? Or if consciousness is only an illusion, is there anything wrong with just “turning off” a person’s mind?

Before we can deal with any of these questions we must define, if only in very broad terms, a nature of consciousness. Consciousness is something more than illusion. It may be an aggregate of biochemical processes, or it may be something related more closely to a notion of spirit. But to say that consciousness, which we all seem to experience, is merely illusion is to side step, in the name of convenience, the very basis of our ability to reason and perform science. Consciousness must exist or there is no context in which we might ask questions, formulate answers, be curious about matters, or feel anything at all. If consciousness is illusion, what is being tricked, if not consciousness itself? Consciousness precedes itself, when examining itself.

However, to say that consciousness exists is not to say that spirit exists. It may very well be that consciousness cannot exist independently of some physical substance. It is to say, however, that consciousness currently appears to be a more abstract quality than something wholly physical. That is, though consciousness may be dependent upon the physical, consciousness itself may not physical, any more than the processes of mathematics is physical. In fact, it is metaphysical (devoid of the pedestrian connotations).

I cannot touch my consciousness, or the consciousness of another person, nor can I smell it, see it, or measure it. This is does mean that consciousness is an illusion. Consciousness must exist before I carry out any processes of science. In order for me to see, taste, smell or feel, or on higher orders, evaluate, determine and hypothesize, I must have a consciousness. Whether or not this consciousness is dependent upon the physical, I am stuck with its necessity. Even though considering the consciousness illusory may help win some arguments, the problems created by such a proposition far outweigh any gains. Consciousness does exist and it is something metaphysical. It might even remain metaphysical, even if the bridging problem between physical, biochemical processes and the manifestation of consciousness are eventually solved.

This admission should not, in any way, fly in the face of science. Many abstract, not altogether tangible things exist that are, for some reason, wholly accepted by science. One of these things is mathematics. Another is the laws of physics themselves. Scientists have no problem accepting that some abstract laws exist that somehow determine the behaviour of everything physical. The question here is, what holds these laws? Why is there an electromagnetically negative charge and a positive charge, and only those two? What determines the probabilities associated with quantum mechanics? In science’s inference of multiple universes, where even the laws of physics can be utterly different in different universes, how are those laws of physics imprinted into that particular nature of reality? Perhaps consciousness is something abstractly structural like this. But it is abstract, similarly, beyond any given physical system. But again, that is not to say that it is not dependent upon a given physical system.

And now to the meat of things, the reason for this piece, which continues after the last one that left us questioning whether consciousness even exists, as most of us assume it must. For if we are questioning the epistemology of consciousness itself, where does that leave us when we consider other people, or other beings, or things, besides ourself? If we question the very possibility of consciousness, what possible hope is there for any sense of ethics or morality - of right or wrong?

First, I want to distinguish between ethics and morality. Here, ethics will mean something we can think about and discuss to reach conclusions. Morality will mean something that we learn through tradition, or are told. This being said, morality will be left out of the discussion altogether. This is done in the interest of expediency, since morality does not lend itself well to any reasonable discussion. Its basis sits in absolute notions that are generally entrenched and immobile. I leave it for people to shout about on the back porch between beer drinking and farts, until they reach their conclusions through a wrestling match, or a bloody club.

If a scientist or philosopher is of the ilk to question the existence of actual consciousness, it is altogether likely they are also of the ilk to question the existence of a basis for any ethics, let alone good or evil.

When you consider consciousness an illusion it is very difficult to reasonably consider ethics. Ethics seems intrinsically oriented toward life, and becomes more relevant the higher you go up on the complexity of life scale. If there is no consciousness, any notion of a higher order of life scale is arbitrary at best. Would you consider applying ethics to the way a physical cluster operates as individual components? How can mechanical operations be ethical or unethical if no consciousness guides them? Without consciousness, things function as they do. Ethics is replaced by gross domination through a preponderance of purpose, or just simply strength.

However, since we can more sanely say that consciousness is something more than illusion, we can also find a place for ethics. Perhaps not for good and evil, but ethics, most certainly. Here the question becomes, is there such a thing as right and wrong, or good and bad, that exists, similar to consciousness, or the laws of physics, in its own true abstraction? Stay with me scientists…

The question of ethics is a very old one; ancient even. Right now we are looking at these questions of ethics and consciousness, framed by a backdrop of new technologies, during a period increasingly dominated by scientific thinking. It is important to keep in mind that rational thinking is timeless, though not all rational positions remain rational over time. The questions of ethics are richly discussed in texts throughout many centuries, distinct from religion. My one selection here, for your consideration is this:

Let’s say that a dog exists. It’s a good dog, but occasionally bad, as dogs are. There is plenty of food for the dog, and the dog will not harm its environment. It will not overly reproduce. In fact, let’s assume there are no ill effects whatsoever from this dog existing, and there never will be. The question is, is it better that the dog lives or dies?

You would be an unusual person indeed if you claim the dog ought to die, when there are no bad effects from it living. If you just hate dogs, substitute a cat, or a monkey, or better yet, yourself. Particularly when you substitute yourself, even saying that it makes no difference whether you live or die rings a little untrue. Most people would agree that, all things being equal, it is better the dog, or you, should live, rather than die. But what makes it better? This is certainly not something purely mechanical.

Interestingly, you can take this even further back, to address concerns about the origin of the universe. Why does the universe exist? Why did it come into being? Well, is it better that the universe came into being, than if it did not? This is the exact line of reasoning early philosophers used to posit the existence of an ethical universe. Personally, I have a hard time accepting that the universe sprang into being because it was supposed to, along with all its physical laws. Nevertheless, there is something to be said about a natural state of ethics, alongside our conscious determination and use of the natural laws of nature.

It will be interesting, if we manage to create a synthetic, or even “real” consciousness - will that consciousness have a similar sense of the inherently ethical? Will it know that being alive is better than being dead? Will it know that promoting non-truths is bad? Or does it require emotion for such determinations? Does consciousness itself require emotion?

But I think the important thing for us to realize is that science and rational thinking does not require us to throw out any value we place upon life, nor to give up on what we know to be ethical choices. Science is still entrenched in its long war against the domination of religious thought. Unfortunately, it runs the risk of creating a narrow dominion of thought all its own, in the process. If we are to have truly open minds, our thoughts and perspectives must be willing to travel beyond their comfortable and familiar contexts, if only just to take a quick peek.

For all the dogma and doctrine out there, the important thing is that we are all alive, participating in, and affected by what each of us embrace, promote, or even just participate within. Life has intrinsic value that is greater than any equation or any religion. Life’s value is greater than any system of government, economy or social tradition.

It is a quality of life that it must grow. Consciousness must grow. However, reductionism and normalization should only be considered a fertilizer for the soil, and not the cage. Otherwise, we run the risk of scientific oppression that would make religious oppression pale in comparison.

In other words, is your awareness of the world and who you are, simply a condition of electrical and chemical interactions between cells?

This is a very simple question. It’s the simple answer that reveals enormous problems. Yes, or no.

My consciousness is considering the ramifications of either answer right now. Don’t mind me. It’s just some chemicals sloshing about. But consider - the answer, yes or no, is important. If known with certainty, the answer to this simple question would topple many fundamental assumptions we currently entertain. Either way it goes. And most of these fundamental assumptions we do not consider. In grossly simplistic terms, do we have a spirit? What does it mean to be conscious?

If our consciousness is a by-product of chemical interactions, there are few compelling reasons that we should also have a spirit. If I feel joy as a result of something I hear, it’s just chemicals flowing around in one area, which trigger a blob of chemicals in another area which creates a “sensation” (whatever that is) of joy, which in turn triggers more blobs of chemicals in another place which may bring back memories to my consciousness of similar joyful things, in whatever region of the mass of neurons in which the consciousness actually manifests.

However, if our consciousness is spiritual in nature, how do we explain the oftentimes profound alteration of our conscious state through brain injury, biological diseases, or chemical alterations? If we have a spirit, how can our personalities be so radically altered by physical changes to a materialistic brain?

These issues may seem purely academic, with little importance in our daily lives. But the issue is significant. Both science and religion exert tremendous force upon our lives. When considering the nature of consciousness, each “team” plays by a completely different rule book, and their game effects us all both directly and profoundly.

For example, brain drugs are now prescribed to people of all ages, even children, with alarming frequency. These drugs represent a major portion of pharmaceutical profits. They are backed by science and the belief that consciousness is, at least, in large part a materialistic process. But if we believe our consciousness is purely biochemical, why not throw chemicals at our biology? Doing so, we can alter our state of mind to happily accommodate any feelings or perceptions we have of the world, or ourselves. We can alter our consciousness to be content with any stimulus or situation. In essence, we can engineer a paradise for ourselves that is completely independent of anyone or anything in the external world. If we are simply biochemical, why not have this bliss?

Well, for one, the people handing out the drugs could get away with murder. But so what? Isn’t some notion of morality and ethics dangerously close to spiritual considerations? I admit there are possible reasons why not, that do not require us to have a spirit. For example, if we all were engineered happy and content regardless of our environment, we might find ourselves soon extinct as a species. Why does it matter that a plague kills everyone? We are happy. Perhaps there is some biologically hard-coded imperative for survival. If we have engineered ourselves into happiness, have we engineered out this imperative? This could be a valid reason to avoid engineering our biochemical consciousness that is not dependent upon having a spirit.

But even this raises a question toward the spiritual. Is our biological imperative toward survival an imperative for only our own survival, and not necessarily the survival of other people? It would seem so. If many other people were to die, there is less competition for food, for mates, and less chance that I will be killed by someone else. Though rational, this is not how most people think. For some reason we find it important that other people should live, instead of die, even when they are not part of our “pack”. Perhaps we feel this way because mirror neurons in our brain somehow allow our consciousness, whatever that is, to place ourselves in the position of others. And because we can imagine ourselves in another person’s shoes, we choose to want them to live, rather than die. Of course, this argument skips the whole problem that we simultaneously know that we are not that person, yet still choose that they should live. That argument relies upon us having, at minimum, empathy. Who knows what combination of cell types and chemicals would cause our consciousness, in whatever grouping of cells it lives, to experience empathy. But maybe empathy isn’t a feeling. Maybe it’s a purely mathematical phenomenon.

One of the largest problems science faces when trying to explain consciousness is providing an account for consciousness in the first place. Is consciousness inside our brain? Where is it? Does it simply manifest itself somehow as a combination of all biochemical processes which occur in the brain? Would our consciousness exist if we had no body, other than a brain, nor external senses? You see, it is one thing for us to affect consciousness in some physical way, but it is quite another to actually pin it down.

The prevailing wisdom of science says that consciousness does not exist, in and of itself, but is rather an illusory result of electrical and biochemical processes that occur within the brain. What we consider our self, or our consciousness, is really an illusion. Our consciousness is just a systematic and recursive material, or mechanical, process that results in some meta-state that we imagine we experience, which we call consciousness. But really, this consciousness is nothing more than a plethora of mechanical processes occurring, which give us the illusion.

To some, believing this explanation turns us into little more than zombies who wander about doing our mechanistic things. You might appear conscious to me, but really you are a mass of predictable mechanics. I must confess there are times when this seems true. But is it the whole picture?

In the West we have a long history of separating the mind from the body. Our thoughts, and therefore our ability to reason, are dependent upon our ability to sense and observe the world. Our mind, which most agree is the seat of our consciousness, is dependent upon our body to provide the sensory input we use to consider the questions of science, and even questions of our own consciousness.

One of the first questions we must ask is, why would this mechanical process have a curiosity about its own consciousness? Is it another biological imperative related to survival that has trickled up over centuries of evolution, that makes us curious in growingly abstract ways, as our brain power develops? I wonder, also, at what point during our evolution, did consciousness, or our illusion of it, spring into being? Are dogs and cats conscious? It is evident to me that they do, at least, have something equivalent to mirror neurons. Or are they just different models of a machine?

But if we believe that consciousness is an illusion, then what, exactly, is being tricked? Is it an illusion that fools itself?

Something rationally critical breaks when we say that consciousness is an illusion that rises up from materialistic processes. But we can fix that. If we say that consciousness does, in fact, exist, and that it is not an illusion, but is solely dependent upon materialistic biochemical processes in the brain — that works. In this sense, consciousness really does exist, but not without our physical gray matter.

This seems far more likely to me than consciousness being an illusion. But it does little to explain how our consciousness comes into being from these material processes. The best explanation I have heard claims that the brain operates in an electro-chemical “loop”. When it operates above a certain frequency, we have consciousness. Below that frequency, we do not. Perhaps it is just a matter of putting all the materialistic pieces together, and eventually we will have our answer about the nature of consciousness. Or, it may be that we are only side-stepping and delaying the inevitable problem: trying to tie the metaphysical to the physical.

But what is metaphysical about having consciousness arise from something material? The same question confronts the science of artificial intelligence. How can something intangible and unphysical, like consciousness, be created from a machine? Their answer? Well, we find ourselves back to the original, predominant scientific position: that there really is no such thing as consciousness — it is mere illusion. By saying this, science does not have to confront any questions about the metaphysics of consciousness. Consciousness just doesn’t exist. Our sense that we are conscious is an illusion. Then here I am again, fooling myself. Or my consciousness. Or whatever. Brainsss!!

Another way to consider the problem is to return to Descartes. The one thing I can say with certainty is that I have consciousness. Anything I learn beyond this comes to me through my senses which may be wholly inadequate to determine any true reality. In this scenario, our consciousness becomes the most fundamental thing in the universe, while all other things are speculative. There is something comfy in this manner of thinking, but it is also an isolating and wholly inadequate position to explain consciousness.

In a similar vein, we might say that consciousness is our spirit which inhabits a materialistic body. In this, we are back to dualism, and we also cannot easily explain why our consciousness is altered by physical changes to our brains. It just doesn’t work.

So, if we look at big score board so far, it appears the spiritualists lag far behind the materialists — yet of the materialists, the ones supporting a true existence of consciousness, rather than some illusion of consciousness, are ahead. OK. Now let’s give the spiritualists some game.

Let’s think of our life, clear back to childhood. Remember how different you were back then? Imagine how different you were, all along the way of your life, up until where you find yourself right now. Some people can’t believe the things they used to believe. It’s almost as if you were another person. But you weren’t another person. You were you, all along the way. It still is you. But you’ve changed. Your consciousness has changed. It’s evolved. You perceive things differently, yet still the “essence” of what makes you, you — it’s still there. And it’s the same. This is one quality of our observed experience of consciousness that materialists will have a difficult time resolving satisfactorily. Not only do we have a current sense of self, but we also have the sense of a meta-self that has always remained in place throughout our life’s experiences.

In many ways, the older civilizations of the world, such as India, have dealt with the concepts of the spirit in relation to science for far longer than the West. Their philosophical works are an interesting read. Interestingly, a good deal of their philosophy deals with an integration of the mind and body, including through such practices as yoga. Yoga seeks to bring the mind and body into a harmony. It does not treat the mind separately from the body — they are one organism, and that organism is you. They take it even further, though. The mind may have many thoughts and ideas running around within it. The practice of yoga seeks to still that chaos in the conscious mind. In their terms, the content of the mind is constantly changing. However, the context of the mind is unchanging. This contextual representation of consciousness is what we might call a spirit, and it sits beyond both the mind and the body. In this way, if the mind or body is damaged, the spirit remains, while life remains. This is true, even when our mental consciousness appears radically altered — the content of the mind can change, but the context of the mind does not.

In this way, the essence of who we are, or our spirit, escapes the logical problem associated with having a notion of spirit in the event of brain damage. In other words, just because our behaviour or personality changes after physical brain damage does not mean that the essence of our spirit is changed. It is only the mental processes that are changed, much like a broken bone. This escape trick is no worse than the escape trick of saying that consciousness is only an illusion. It also explains how we maintain an abstract sense of self despite radical changes to our consciousness over time, even though the natural acts of learning.

If we can look internally, which is, of itself, another argument against illusion, we can actually get a hint of the difference between the content of our thoughts, and the context in which those thoughts occur. Similarly, most people in the world believe in reincarnation, where after death, and before we were born, we were someone else, or even something else. We might have been male or female. We might have been a dog, or a spider. In each of these, the content of our minds would change. However, the context would always be us.

As rigorously as many scientists rail against any notion of spirit, claiming access to tangibly provable and all-encompassing knowledge, it is somewhat ironic to hear, so often coming from them, this notion that we humans are “star stuff”, and, in essence, the universe trying to understand itself. Perhaps they mean this purely mechanistically. Why would the universe seek to understand itself? Is that mechanical?

Who knows? I like the idea, though. Unless I just seem to like it. But maybe that’s enough. It certainly isn’t going to keep from exploring more. And it’s certainly not going to cause me to just patently accept all sorts of things that stem from people believing one way or another on these issues. Perhaps that makes me a squeaky cog in the great cosmic zombie machine. Perhaps it damns me. I just want it to be an honest game. And this game is far from over.

Sudden realizations of a profound truth, triggered by something commonplace we notice, where some simple, even unrelated thing, sparks an inner revelation. A startling truth, so obvious by its nature, that it is difficult believing you never realized it before, until the moment of that epiphany.

I think a lot of us are having those lately. DJ explained epiphanies to me, many years ago. Before that, I know I had them, but never knew it.

An epiphany doesn’t have to be spiritual. You can have an epiphany in science, as surely as science can lead to an epiphany.

Epiphanies are usually very personal experiences. It is never talked about, but I think whole societies can have epiphanies together, as a social unit with each other, too.

Once you have one, you can never go back to seeing things the way you once did. It is another bite of that apple. Paradise is lost, yet another paradise appears, up ahead. There are all kinds of paradises.

We have personal paradises, and we have collective ones. Sometimes they are at odds with each other. That is where leaders and followers play out their games. Perhaps if this is considered fully, it will be an epiphany for some.

Life moves toward the wider - the more all-encompassing. Is that my life, your life, or our life?

This is where the leaders and followers play out their games, in a hierarchy of unexamined pragmatism. Where doctrines are followed without understanding the origins upon which they stand, or even if they stand upon anything solid. The game field, where penetrating questions are dismissed as useless or naïve, and so never addressed. So often we find that even following epiphanies, everything remains the same.

But does it truly remain the same? When you have an epiphany about the world, or your life, your foundations change. You become fundamentally altered, even when your routines might continue unaltered. But when those routines are at odds with the revelation, friction and disharmony results. And when this happens, it is routine that inevitably must break. Theories must be altered. Prevailing wisdom must be rewritten for all our collective future. Somehow, our nature compels us to regain a harmony between what we have become, and what we continue to do.

This is the game, with all the leaders and the followers. It is being worked out. Everything is important. Especially life. All of it. More than anything. There is no higher ground, and we each stand upon that same ground. This is worth far more money than we could ever fabricate.

Who can say otherwise? Mary, Mary, quite contrary, how does your garden grow?

The demons sought to destroy everything good, to rule and dominate all things. The gods, as aspects of the nature of existence, fought against the legion of demons. The gods prevailed against all but one, the great demon Raktabija.

From each drop of Raktabija’s blood spilled in the battle, a thousand new demons sprung. It was not long before the gods were overwhelmed.

In desperation, the gods appeal to Ishvara, the embodiment of the principle of the universe. From his and her third eye, the goddess Kali is born, a whirling multi-limbed dance of death and destruction who rips through the demons, destroying them all and drinking their blood so that no more spring forth.

This leaves Raktabija powerless and his assult is defeated. But Kali, mindless in her dance of destruction and fueled by the blood of demons continues shredding all in her path, across all worlds, even the gods.

Seeing this, the god Shiva, the embodiment of the universe, lays down in the path of Kali. As Kali steps upon the chest of Shiva, which is the container of the spirit, the realization through the embodiment of the universe, of all existence bursts into her mind.

The enormity of this epiphany causes her eyes to go wide and her tongue stick out, and she stops her maddened and destructive dance. Some claim she transformed into a child to weep.

Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell

The better parts of ourselves, even collectively, continue moving forward despite any terrible things others might do. Even as we work to correct any wrongs that are committed, it is important to remember the great and wonderful accomplishments of which we are equally capable.

Some of us believe that money and power should not hold such a central focus for the aspirations of humanity. We believe that the universe itself and our mysterious existence within it is an incomparably better focus for our energies. If there is such a thing as “trickle down”, our better understanding of the principles that define our fundamental reality offers far more to humanity than green paper, numbers stored in bank computers, or the elevation of some individuals who might impose rule over us. If leaders, distant from the realities we all face, are what we must have, my hope is that these leaders learn to rule with a subtlety which enshrines the more noble aspects of our nature rather than our more gross and primitive instincts like greed and territory.

Above is a picture of the Mars Rover “Spirit”, one of two ground-roaming probes we sent to the planet Mars more than four years ago, in January of 2004. They were expected to survive for 90 days. Today, almost five years later, they are still operating, sampling soil and rocks from various terrain and analyzing the chemical composition of the Martian atmosphere as it changes across the Martian seasons.

Some day we might all travel to Mars, just as people traveled to America from Europe on transatlantic ships. We know that Mars used to have water, and still has vast polar ice caps. We currently have several probes both on and orbiting Mars, continuing the exploration. Plans are in the works to send people within the next few years, who will utilize the natural resources we have found to sustain themselves. At this point, humanity will have taken its first real step into inhabiting a far more vast and wondrous universe than we have ever known. What becomes of territorial boundaries, in this?

Spirit, for all these years, generates its power to function by harnessing the light of the sun. But as you can see, Mars is very dusty; an almost powdery dust. If the solar panels get too dusty, no sunlight can be absorbed. But Mars also has many, many dust devils that whirl constantly about, across the landscape, which have, through a happy accident, worked to keep the solar panels clean. It was not just chance that helped these rovers perform their mission so well. The scientists and engineers took their time to design and build good stuff, and do it right. Monetary budgets can wreak havoc with good science. More than half of all “budget” missions NASA has farmed to private sector corporations have failed. However, the missions built in-house at NASA have a stellar success rate.

Interestingly, NASA does not blame private sector corporations for their failings. Instead, they blame the US Navy. Apparently the US Navy produced a report many years ago that suggested private sector companies can do the same work the government can, only much cheaper. Somehow, this report has become gospel. Now, private sector companies, as an unspoken rule of government funding, receive only this fractional allocation of money to get the same job done. And where NASA projects are concerned, this can be disastrous. Most likely, this is true with any leading science-based projects.

Ah, but mortgage lending bankers and assorted usurers need their Christmas bonuses. Just so we know, we could have completed 1,000 comparable Mars missions with this money. Or built 20 more space stations. We could even have started another war! Actually, it would have been nice just to have a tiny fraction of that money to complete the space station we already have, to its original design.

It makes me a little curious. Which costs more money: the wasteful habits of scientists who work in government and academia, or the necessary profits that private companies must produce both for themselves and their shareholders?

It’s an interesting question, with more than few ramifications. It’s not a simple one. What money-people might call waste in an academic setting can lead to unforeseen revolutions in both science and for all humanity — even for all other species on the planet. The big answers we get, the answers that are truly revolutionary, usually happen unexpectedly, hitting us square atop the head from out of the blue. It is nothing something you can pre-plan. This is true for both large, collective issues as well as our own private, individual epiphanies.

And what happens when we channel all of our money into companies whose business is making more money? Why would our money ever leave that corral? Of course, there are appearances generated, intended to lend credence to their purpose. But taken as a whole, the vast majority of the money never leaves that corral. No discovery and curiosity exists in that corral. Only greed, hoarding, self-gratification, and a lust for some abstract notion of power. Any benefit to humanity is merely incidental. Giving our money to money-people is the true waste of money, despite what money-people say.

I wonder what would happen if we gave our money to NASA, who could then hire whole generations of scientists in many disciplines, devoted to their passion of uncovering the nature of our existence. I wonder what would happen if we gave our money to doctors and biologists whose passion was understanding how our bodies work and keeping them healthy. In other words, what would happen if we made our hearts and minds the focus of our energy, instead of money?

In a few days, on November 29th, the orbits of Mars and Earth will position us on opposite sides of the sun. This solar conjunction will block all communication with Spirit for approximately two weeks. Winter is also fast approaching on Mars. The rovers will be commanded to sit still with their solar collectors aimed at some hopefully optimal position to collect enough sunlight to keep them alive through the winter. Spirit is barely finding enough energy to stay alive even now, before the onset of winter, after a recent, large dust storm dirtied much of its panels. Hopefully another little devil might find its way by, to do some accidental cleaning for us.

Right now, the power is so low in Spirit that it keeps switching into a safe mode in an attempt to protect itself. It stores its discoveries for several days at a time, and only speaks to a satellite orbiting Mars via its low power antenna. This satellite then speaks for Spirit, relaying its discoveries back to us. Spirit’s only hope for survival is to avoid its instincts to enter safe mode. Today, NASA is trying to shut down all the distractions so that just a bit of warmth might remain to see it through.

Recently we discovered even more. The incredibly wacky THEMIS probes have revealed some strange connections between our little island home and the sun. You can read some background on our home and this mission in a piece from early last year, if you like.

It’s a good feeling having solid science. We know now that every few minutes magnetic “portals” open between the sun and the earth, connecting us across all those 90-some million miles of space. When these magnetic connections happen, charged particles flow between us. This is plasma, the so-called fourth state of matter, that is so energized that electrons are stripped from atoms, floating freely.

These periodic magnetic connections are called flux transfer events (FTE’s). Their existence is a shock to many scientists who, although they have been proposed by others for decades through good science, have refused to believe in them. And rightly so. But what a happy vindication today is for those scientists who have fought for the acceptance of FTE’s.

It is inevitable that the fringe Electric Universe people will interpret this as another tick mark on their “told ya so” column. Then again, back in 1984 they were already comparing an electrical connection between the Earth and sun to a capacitor that must periodically discharge, while mainstream scientists are now confused about why these magnetic connections happen every few minutes.

For those of you interested, the Electric Universe people believe that electromagnetism is the predominant force of the universe and that gravity is not what holds things in shape. They believe electrical currents are everywhere in space, flowing between all things. This is why novae look like plasma in magnetic fields, for example. Mainstream science says that no electrical currents travel through space. However, mainstream science is happy saying that the energy observed in “empty” space is the result of particles spontaneously coming into existence by borrowing energy from the future, from which they soon annihilate. What do I know? I like chocolate.

Oh, right, that giant, glob of a gas ball pressing down on us all the time. I was going to say how nice it is, at least, having its goodness trickle down upon us to energize the processes of life. Here’s another example. Nine banks are receiving $125 billion dollars from us taxpayers, the justification being that it will give them cash to free up the credit markets. However, they have apparently reserved $108 billion for executive bonuses.

This includes our Treasury Secretary’s former company. He claims that they needed to be allowed to do this, otherwise they would not have been likely to participate in the bailout we offered them. Sounds more like blackmail to me.

Also, don’t forget that our Vice President’s former company Haliburton made over $20 billion in the last year, mostly through US government contracts that were not put out for competition bids from any other companies, related to war and oil industry maintenance. Oh, and prisons. Also, our patriotic Vice President’s company has the vast majority of its business operations based overseas, effectly paying little or no taxes on any of the money.

Yup, that giant, garishly fat sun, shining down its radiance upon us. I don’t exactly understand how religious people can be so behind these guys. So many of the poor an disenfranchised people just keep giving them more. Is it because they mention God?

I wonder what kind of blindness it is that allows people to adopt and support the very things that have made their lives miserable. It’s as strange as 70% of black people voting to support California’s Proposition 8, which curtails the civil rights of a minority. These people actually voted to oppress a minority.

Ugh. Yes, happy, happy Obama. He really does have his work cut out for him, if he plans to break many of his campaign promises, to accomplish what he originally stood for, before the vote pandering began. I really do hope that he is a liar and a weasel. Sort of. But not really. Actually, I’m just confused.

Which is likely why these invisible magnetic connections are so inspiring and appealing to me, even if they are to just a bloated ball of gas. Maybe it is because I hope that, in being connected, the flows might travel both ways — that the sun might come to appreciate its position and gain the awareness of its responsibilities as the collective source.

I suppose that is as far into optimism I am willing to tread, presently. Neither optimism nor pessimism is very scientific. Rationality can stretch there, however. But not just yet.