What is Freedom, Anyway?

The other day I made an observation to a coworker about drugs. I said something to the effect that mind-altering drugs bought at the drugstore with a prescription from a doctor are acceptable, but mind-altering drugs bought on a street corner are not. At that point he assumed I was trying to argue for legalization, which normally would have been a valid assumption. In the midst of the argument, I ended up saying: "It doesn't matter. What we have is probably the best we can do right now."

Why did I say that? Let's start with an axiom: our actions are determined by a combination of our values, our belief systems and our perceived environments. Our environment is what it is; we have a bit of latitude in how we perceive our environment, and there are some things we have control over, but for the most part it's a given. That leaves our values and our belief systems. How many of us really have our own values and belief systems?

Just to clarify, by belief systems I don't only mean things like religion. I also mean things like "is global warming caused by humans?" and "does dietary fat and cholesterol cause heart disease?" Yes, the answers to these questions are facts, but unless you've examined the research for yourself after at least learning the basics of the field and having a solid grounding in scientific method, you only have a belief system, and not even your own belief system.

For most of us, we have a combination of what our parents taught us, what we learned in school, and the information given us by the media. Even if we question it, we often end up with an alternative that was also given to us by someone else. So, does it make sense to talk about freedom at all?

For some of us (and you know who you are) the answer is yes. For the rest, the answer is not yet. Before the vast majority of us (the writer included) can have any real idea of freedom, we must examine our belief systems and our values and decide for ourselves what makes sense. But before we can do that, we must recognize that what we have right now is not our own.

Book Review: The Crack in the Cosmic Egg

There's a scene in The Matrix where Neo and Morpheus are standing in a dojo. Morpheus explains that it is actually a computer simulation, and that, like any simulation, there are rules. "Some of these rules may be bent; others may be broken." I was reminded of this scene when I read the chapter "don juan and jesus" in The Crack In the Cosmic Egg by Joseph Chilton Pearce (ISBN 0-671-80621-1). Here's a relevant quote:

Don Juan and Jesus consider the world to be an arbitrary construct, not an illusion as in the East or a fated absolute as in the West...Don Juan and Jesus believe the materials of the world to be subject to dramatic alteration and reorganization by an activity of the mind.

Mr. Pearce also recounts an incident in his college years where for some reason he was able to press the lighted end of a cigarette against his bare skin without getting burned or blistered. The book could be said to be an exploration of the implications of that experience. Other paranormal phenomena are also touched upon. Those among us who are recovering materialists will have trouble with his theories about the laws of science unless we are pretty far along in our recovery, so this book is not recommended for newbies. On the other hand, if you have an open mind, and a few cracks in your model of the universe don't bother you, it will be a very interesting read.

Book Review: The Tyranny of Words

The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase (ISBN 0-15-692394-7) raises an interesting issue. The author points out that for most words (the exception being words that denote things to which one can point), everyone has their own idea of what each word means. As an example, ask a few people what freedom means to them. The problem with this is that if you say something to someone, because they have their own idea of what each word means, they won't understand you, but because they think they do, they won't ask for clarification.

As an example, if someone were to say "They hate us because we're free," a listener who thought of freedom as meaning the right to do whatever one wanted as long as no harm was done to other people or their property would have a different understanding of what was said, as opposed to a listener who thought of freedom as meaning that we (as a nation) don't have to take orders from any other nation. The two listeners would each believe that they understood the statement, but would have very different ideas about what the statement meant, and wouldn't even know that they understood it differently.

Now why does this matter to us? Those of us who have read anything by Plato will agree that this was a known issue even back then. Of course the age of Plato was the same time period when many classic works, including the Bible, are thought to have been written. Since the ancients knew they would be misunderstood if they tried to convey their wisdom in literal terms, they needed an alternative method of getting their message across. Metaphor, simile and allegory have the advantage of being able to use words that refer to things that can be pointed at. A writer could say "the Israelites escaped from bondage in Egypt and wandered in the desert for forty years before reaching the promised land," and the literal meaning wouldn't change much over the years. As a result, the metaphorical meaning wouldn't change either.

So my theory is this: any writing dated before the 19th century which appears contradictory, impossible, or immoral taken literally may in fact have a symbolic meaning that makes sense. Our job is to find that meaning.

Materialists Anonymous

Hello, everyone. My name is Larry, and I'm a recovering materialist.

If you are also a materialist and want help, "A Beginner's Guide to Reality" by Jim Baggott (ISBN 1-933648-04-X) is a good place to start. The book covers three questions: 1) Is Money Real? 2) Are Colors Real? 3) Are Photons Real? The answers may surpise you.

The author of this book is also a materialist, but that may just be because he thinks the only choices are materialism and dualism. For that reason, if you are a materialist when you start the book, you will still be one when you finish, but you at least will have a better understanding of the issues involved. You can then move on to the other books I've discussed, or you can read books by some of the philosophers referenced in Baggott's book: Plato, Aristotle, Berkeley, Hume and Kant. An interesting exercise would be to read those philosophers under the theory that they know something that they are either unable or unwilling to express explicitly, and therefore use metaphor extensively in their works. (By the way, you should also try this exercise with Dante's "Divine Inferno.")

An Oversimplified Model of the Universe

For this exercise, you will need a blank sheet of paper, a compass and a ruler. First, draw a circle of any size on the paper. Next, draw a point at the center of the circle. Finally, draw a line connecting the center of the circle to any point on its circumference. You have now drawn an oversimplified model of the universe.

The center of the circle represents the source of all things. Call it God if you want, or the infinite, or zero point. The circumference of the circle represents the physical universe. The line connecting the center to the circumference is you. An adequate model would involve at least 4-dimensional space, but you get the idea.

For more details, read "Jesus and the Lost Goddess" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (ISBN 0-609-60767-7). Check your literalist interpretation of Christianity at the door.

Start Here

The Power of Myth (ISBN 0-385-41886-8) by Joseph Campbell, is of course, an excellent introduction to mythology and why it still matters. It also serves as a very good introduction to comparative religion, as it covers not only the "Big Three" of western civilization (Christianity, Judaism and Islam), but also Eastern and even Native American religious thought. For example, one of the highlights of the book is a delightful story about Indra's castle.

What may not be readily apparent is that the myths not only represent things that may happen in our lives, for example the quest and the coming of age, but also things that could or should happen, like spiritual development and what I will call for expediency's sake "enlightenment."

Even though I reviewed a couple of books before this one, the seeker of wisdom will do well to read this one first.

The Matrix Reconsidered

Let us consider the model of reality as portrayed in the Matrix movies. In this model, all sensory inputs are supplied to us by a computer modeling an imaginary world designed to keep us busy while we supply heat and energy to our AI controllers.

Now, let's make a couple of modifications to this model. First, in addition to sensory inputs, thoughts and emotions will be supplied by the computers in addition to (best case) or instead of (worst case) our own. Second, to improve scalability, some (or most) of the data processing is offloaded to the client machines, or in other words, our brains. Appropriate programs are downloaded to our brains and the physics affecting "nearby" objects is processed locally. Other programs could be run locally, but because the downloaded programs provide a strong "disincentive for doing so, there is little need on the part of the AI controllers to monitor local programs.

Replace the AI controllers with reptilian creatures from another dimension and we now have the model of reality as given by David Icke's book "Infinite Love is the Only Truth; Everything Else is Illusion." (ISBN 0-9538810-6-7) Some of you who have read Icke's other books are probably thinking, "Yes, but what about the lizards?" Forget about the lizards! They can best be considered as a metaphor for the AI controllers I mentioned above. They just happen to look like lizards to those of us who can see them. It doesn't matter in the least. The entire point of the book is that the lizards have no real power over us except to the extent that we run their downloaded programs on our brain computers.

That said, I have the same complaint about this book as I have about the rest of his books: too much space devoted to preaching to the choir about the Illuminati control network and not enough detail about what to do about it. If you've read his other books, you could probably just read chapter three ("Downloading Reality") and chapter ten ("Logging Off") and not miss anything important. On the other hand, you'll probably find the book well worth the money for just those two chapters.