In my line of work, I get to deal with applied physics and I am paid for my imagination amongst other things…Most of my work involves using controlled electromagnetic fields and interpreting various remote detection datasets. I find this fascinating and stimulating.
As part of educating the various workers on geophysics and the methods we use, I came across this video: Magnetic Movie. Apart from being an excellent teaching aid, it spurred the ripening of an idea that was out of focus in my mind. But before getting to the meat of it, I have to leisurely stroll around the core of the topic in order to set the context…
Being ingrained in such a scientific endeavor, people might find it strange or suspicious that I would still view the occult with somewhat a friendly eye. My mother is to blame, partly. She has an unshakable faith in things unexplained, or explained, that flirt with mysticism and…it’s my mom; I like her. Esoteric ideas often grow out of things unexplained. Although I don’t agree with many (most) of my mom’s beliefs (aging and university took care of that), she undeniably has strong intuition and believes in it. What is intuition? I’ve had intuition. Everyone has the capacity of intuition to a degree or other. I’ve witnessed intuition. There are many recorded ‘facts’ out there to attest that intuition and similar phenomena do happen.
My favorite concrete first-hand example is this simple experiment (which at the time was more like an improvised game) done one evening at a kitchen table in an apartment on St-Denis in Montreal. My friend had a pack of twelve coloured markers. We proceeded (out of boredom?) to play a game where he would pick a colour without me seeing it and I had to guess the colour. Simple. I guessed the right colour 9 or 10 times in a row from the onset. After a couple more tries he gave up because he was too freaked out. The odds of this happening are about 1 in 1,000,000,000. It’s roughly equivalent to wining the Lotto 6/49 jackpot twice in a lifetime if you buy one ticket every week over 20 years. I’m about 2000 times more likely to get hit by lightning. So, was it sheer luck? Coincidence? Or did I ‘hit’ the right ‘frequency’ somehow? Well there’s some new research coming out in this vein to take a more serious scientific look at this phenomenon. Synchronicity? Maybe. The exact mechanism? Yet unknown. Perhaps it was just a spike in probability and had we continued guessing over a few more hours, the odds would likely have evened out to a more ‘normal’ distribution. We’ll never know…
Another phenomenon that has only been lightly brushed with science is the simultaneous emergence of ideas or more broadly what could be referred to as collective unconsciousness. Carl Jung did some work along those lines. His (and others’) body of work encompasses what is now generally known as synchronicity. Although the phenomenon has been described, it hasn’t been explained and is far from garnering serious attention from serious scientists.
Recently stumbling across this other (very cool) video, ‘the idea’ took firm roots in my mind and I now have to write its big lines to get rid of it…or make it blossom…we’ll see…
After having watched the two videos above, consider the following:
• Particles travel along ‘pathways’ or ‘fields’ all around us;
• We transmit information along such fields when we use wireless data transmission to download music and movies or when we communicate with someone at a distance using cell phones (these technologies are designed to operate in a very specific frequency range; along specific pathways); heck, it’s even possible to control worms at a distance!!
• The information that is generated/stored in the brain undoubtedly has to obey some kind of structure (packets/encoding/whatever)…
• The brain emanates a field of its own and is basked in the multitude of fields that permeates our environment (there’s even ways to disturb specific areas of the brain using controlled magnetic fields) and now more sophisticated methods are being developed to measure biofields ; “The human brain produces a complex, ever-varying electromagnetic field, generated by the coordinated activity of billions of neurons. Neuroscientists now believe that this oscillating field, created by neuronal processes, also plays a crucial role in the brain’s functioning by synchronizing and coordinating the activities that create it.”
• The whole body may generate magnetic fields actually, the Reiki healing technique, although not clinically recognized, is based on this principle, and there is now scientific evidence to support it to some degree…
• All particles can come in interaction at one time or another based on rules that we understand and others we don’t.
I then have to ask what now seems obvious to me; would it be far-fetched to suspect that there can be some kind of particulate interaction and data transfer along yet-unsuspected, ‘invisible’ pathways connecting us to each other and the rest of the ‘entities’, albeit in a chaotic way? What prevents ‘bits’ of information to enter a wave stream, jump to higher order frequencies or pathways, and travel unsuspected distances? It’s all about fields and information…
Remember, you read it here first! ;-)
After writing this, I stumbled upon some very interesting ideas expressed by Rupert Sheldrake. He has a few books out there and some capsules are available on youtube. I encourage you to check these out; it is truly mind-bending…I might report back when I finish reading some of his books…
And for a clear synthesis on how all this can fit together, consider the Universe as Hologram hypothesis; it is garnering some serious scientific momentum. It makes much sense to me. Will you support the revolution or be one of those flat-earth naysayers? And you think that's air you're breathing? Hmm.
Good night folks…
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
Happy New Year
The World looks back on yet another year as it turns a page of its Gregorian calendar. The preceding year always looks fuller of events when we stop to summarize it. But it’s all relative; it’s mainly because we only look back on a given year ‘once a year’ that we are struck with a general state of awe, relief or other punctual burst of excessive trivial emotions. It is a direct result of the way we compartmentalize time. Some would argue time is linear and continuous while yet others would say time doesn’t exist at all; a fallacy of your mind. So the emotion you get while pondering the sum of events of an arbitrary 356 days may be but an insignificant plop of nothingness.
No matter, in our fabricated absolute terms, a lot happened in 2010. A lot happens all the time. My wife and I are bringing a new being into this World this year along with my new album. If I’m lucky, my album should outlast my daughter. But that won’t matter much if Homo sapiens spirals down to oblivion and takes life on Earth with it…I’m getting deeply concerned about the World, troubled even. My hope, my faith in humanity, is on fragile footing in this beginning of 2011. We have a general lack of good political leaders, the economy is unstable because of irresponsibility, corruption and greed are rampant and despite the green trend, we are still destroying acres of natural habitats every day, overfishing and putting increasingly large amounts of new toxins in the environment (read this little juicy bit). Add denser anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation (human-created noise) to the mix and I think we’ve got cause for real concern even with a possible imbalance of my brain chemistry taken into account.
Take these recent events for example:
I once read that since birds have a high metabolic rate, they are more vulnerable to stress and toxins. I can’t remember the source (it was from a scientist, doesn’t matter) but it warned of bird deaths as an impending sign of doom for increased atmospheric toxicity. Similar to canaries used in coal mines I suppose but on a different scale. Is it really what’s happening? If it is, can we detect the toxin? (no toxin has been detected yet, but I’ll repeat Einstein quote “Absence of proof is not proof of absence” especially when putting the study I mentioned above into the equation).
The ‘experts’ dismiss the connectedness of mass fish and bird deaths. They say only one species of fish died so it must mean it was a species-specific disease in that case (undetected desease though, this game can be played both ways). Do these ‘experts’ know that different species of fish have different tolerance thresholds to different toxins? That’s the reason 2 or more species of fish are sometimes used as ‘detectors’ near mine sites to make sure the water put back in the environment is safe. That being said, it might still be just a coincidence.
But for the birds alone, the ‘experts’ have foiled the ‘intoxication’ theory in favor of a meteorological phenomenon cause. So the near simultaneous deaths would be what? Serendipity? The result of a ‘more-connected’ world and its web-journalism? That’s what some seemingly more sober sources are thinking…and it’s a valid argument.
Some conspiracy theorists have mentioned an EMP like effect and secret weapons testing (naming the HAARP project for example) may be the cause. Perhaps this is not so farfetched? Birds’ biomagnetic sensitivity may be higher than other organisms…who knows? It is a fact that they orient themselves with a biomagnet. There hasn’t been tremendous research in that field yet. Still, we are putting ever-more powerful and numerous cell towers and satellites all around the planet, thus disturbing the ‘natural’ fields.
Do you remember about those bees dying off a few years ago? You may have forgotten that piece of ‘news’ but the mystery is not 100% explained either and it keeps happening. And there’s that new mysterious fungus killing off bats in the US…
The bottom line is that I’m no expert and I don’t have a better answer to these (perhaps unjustifyingly alarming) phenomena but one thing is clear: we are fucking up our biosphere through poor management and it’s pissing me off.
We’ll all be paying for it…
Good night cruel World.
Hopefully I wake up to a green economy revolution…
No matter, in our fabricated absolute terms, a lot happened in 2010. A lot happens all the time. My wife and I are bringing a new being into this World this year along with my new album. If I’m lucky, my album should outlast my daughter. But that won’t matter much if Homo sapiens spirals down to oblivion and takes life on Earth with it…I’m getting deeply concerned about the World, troubled even. My hope, my faith in humanity, is on fragile footing in this beginning of 2011. We have a general lack of good political leaders, the economy is unstable because of irresponsibility, corruption and greed are rampant and despite the green trend, we are still destroying acres of natural habitats every day, overfishing and putting increasingly large amounts of new toxins in the environment (read this little juicy bit). Add denser anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation (human-created noise) to the mix and I think we’ve got cause for real concern even with a possible imbalance of my brain chemistry taken into account.
Take these recent events for example:
- Bird deaths
- Near simultaneous fish deaths near where the bird deaths occurred
- More bird deaths
- Simultaneous bird deaths in a complete different area of the Earth
I once read that since birds have a high metabolic rate, they are more vulnerable to stress and toxins. I can’t remember the source (it was from a scientist, doesn’t matter) but it warned of bird deaths as an impending sign of doom for increased atmospheric toxicity. Similar to canaries used in coal mines I suppose but on a different scale. Is it really what’s happening? If it is, can we detect the toxin? (no toxin has been detected yet, but I’ll repeat Einstein quote “Absence of proof is not proof of absence” especially when putting the study I mentioned above into the equation).
The ‘experts’ dismiss the connectedness of mass fish and bird deaths. They say only one species of fish died so it must mean it was a species-specific disease in that case (undetected desease though, this game can be played both ways). Do these ‘experts’ know that different species of fish have different tolerance thresholds to different toxins? That’s the reason 2 or more species of fish are sometimes used as ‘detectors’ near mine sites to make sure the water put back in the environment is safe. That being said, it might still be just a coincidence.
But for the birds alone, the ‘experts’ have foiled the ‘intoxication’ theory in favor of a meteorological phenomenon cause. So the near simultaneous deaths would be what? Serendipity? The result of a ‘more-connected’ world and its web-journalism? That’s what some seemingly more sober sources are thinking…and it’s a valid argument.
Some conspiracy theorists have mentioned an EMP like effect and secret weapons testing (naming the HAARP project for example) may be the cause. Perhaps this is not so farfetched? Birds’ biomagnetic sensitivity may be higher than other organisms…who knows? It is a fact that they orient themselves with a biomagnet. There hasn’t been tremendous research in that field yet. Still, we are putting ever-more powerful and numerous cell towers and satellites all around the planet, thus disturbing the ‘natural’ fields.
Do you remember about those bees dying off a few years ago? You may have forgotten that piece of ‘news’ but the mystery is not 100% explained either and it keeps happening. And there’s that new mysterious fungus killing off bats in the US…
The bottom line is that I’m no expert and I don’t have a better answer to these (perhaps unjustifyingly alarming) phenomena but one thing is clear: we are fucking up our biosphere through poor management and it’s pissing me off.
We’ll all be paying for it…
Good night cruel World.
Hopefully I wake up to a green economy revolution…
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Management Paradox
There are ultimately two types of management: autocracy and democracy. All other forms of direction, government and decision-making processes are, fundamentally, derivatives of these two classes, or a grey-zone intermixing of the two (you can read about the semantic subtleties on Wikipedia...).
For autocracy, you have a central figure, or leader, that decides for the group according to his/her own beliefs; for simplicity, let’s assume this leader essentially ignores all other viewpoints and ideas.
For democracy, you have a decisional process that encompasses the group; there is deliberation with all members on the issue at stake and a consensus is reached. The ‘amount’ of majority required to declare a ‘consensus’ can vary from system to system and is categorized by arbitrary labels.
Both forms of leadership are problematic in their absolute form. The underlying duality is caused by an opposition of efficiency (time of decision) vs. accuracy (quality of decision). Autocracy is a much faster decisional process but can be blindsided by a lack of perspective that democracy can provide. The simplest compromise is to literally “meet in the middle”; by creating a hierarchy composed of a leader surrounded by ‘experts’, or counselors. This can be loosely defined as an ‘Oligarchy’. Without doing a scientific survey, one can presume that a majority of political systems and private management structures fall in a form of oligarchy. Furthermore, an oligarchy can function within a democratic system. But oligarchy is closer to autocracy than democracy. It is a compromise, thus it is imperfect.
That’s what our political systems are today: compromises (or opportunism in the case of totalitarian tyrannies). So how do you reconcile timely decision-making processes with a more democratic approach? The simple answer is that you cannot. Democratic deliberation is a time-consuming process. You have to be ready to spend the time, and resources (referendums are expensive).
The complex answer requires an understanding of decision-making at a smaller scale. When a boss and two of his employees face a problem, it can be resolved in three different ways:
1. The boss can dictate how to solve the problem without consulting his employees; this is essentially autocratic behavior. The boss is acting based solely on his own preconceptions, beliefs education and experience; he is acting according to his ego. This is a typical response of men that are given or achieve roles of power, but do not originally possess strong moral ethics, or at least a sufficient ‘compassionate’ sense. Ego is an emotional response to power and although successful in varying frequency, it can lead to inaccurate, brash and often damaging decisions for the employees or even damaging to the ‘whole’ or the ‘future’. The boss may be convinced that he is using a ‘flawless’ rational thought process, yet the output is severely hampered by data gaps. The reason for this is a lack of perspective. It is practically impossible for a single person to know absolutely all variables of a complex problem. It is for a similar reason that more than one camera are used at sports events.
2. In the second scenario, the boss can leave the decision entirely to its employees and then let it happen without any questions. This could be considered as a purely democratic process, but is in fact not perfect because the involvement of everyone (including the boss) is not achieved – in a large population, this could actually be considered anarchy. The pitfall is that the employees may come up with a solution that is ultimately detrimental to the company, or even to themselves (to the whole, or future) because they lack information/knowledge/wisdom that only the boss has (the leading figure is usually not in that position because of sheer luck!).
3. The third decisional process can be presented as the boss discussing with his employees and reaching a consensus. In this scenario, the employees can propose solutions, but the boss may put their ideas in perspective and explain why he thinks it might work or not. It is a highly logical, inclusive, rational process granted that all the information is “put on the table”. In a small group, this is probably the best way to solve problems.
It should be clear from these three scenarios, that what plagues both democracy and autocracy is information alienation. On one hand, we have a boss, or manager, that may lack some hands-on ‘nuts-&-bolts’ detailed information; he is disconnected from the ‘reality’. On the other, we have employees that may lack ‘big-picture’ or larger-scale mechanism knowledge; they are disconnected from the whole. It is only by bridging the two parties together that a truly best solution can be achieved with greatest confidence. This is what I would call complete information consolidation (CIC). I believe that CIC management is the next step in the evolution of governance of our civilization and businesses. The challenge is to achieve complete bilateral information transparency across the system’s hierarchy and protect the integrity of this information. It is a big challenge, but I believe it can be accomplished.
For autocracy, you have a central figure, or leader, that decides for the group according to his/her own beliefs; for simplicity, let’s assume this leader essentially ignores all other viewpoints and ideas.
For democracy, you have a decisional process that encompasses the group; there is deliberation with all members on the issue at stake and a consensus is reached. The ‘amount’ of majority required to declare a ‘consensus’ can vary from system to system and is categorized by arbitrary labels.
Both forms of leadership are problematic in their absolute form. The underlying duality is caused by an opposition of efficiency (time of decision) vs. accuracy (quality of decision). Autocracy is a much faster decisional process but can be blindsided by a lack of perspective that democracy can provide. The simplest compromise is to literally “meet in the middle”; by creating a hierarchy composed of a leader surrounded by ‘experts’, or counselors. This can be loosely defined as an ‘Oligarchy’. Without doing a scientific survey, one can presume that a majority of political systems and private management structures fall in a form of oligarchy. Furthermore, an oligarchy can function within a democratic system. But oligarchy is closer to autocracy than democracy. It is a compromise, thus it is imperfect.
That’s what our political systems are today: compromises (or opportunism in the case of totalitarian tyrannies). So how do you reconcile timely decision-making processes with a more democratic approach? The simple answer is that you cannot. Democratic deliberation is a time-consuming process. You have to be ready to spend the time, and resources (referendums are expensive).
The complex answer requires an understanding of decision-making at a smaller scale. When a boss and two of his employees face a problem, it can be resolved in three different ways:
1. The boss can dictate how to solve the problem without consulting his employees; this is essentially autocratic behavior. The boss is acting based solely on his own preconceptions, beliefs education and experience; he is acting according to his ego. This is a typical response of men that are given or achieve roles of power, but do not originally possess strong moral ethics, or at least a sufficient ‘compassionate’ sense. Ego is an emotional response to power and although successful in varying frequency, it can lead to inaccurate, brash and often damaging decisions for the employees or even damaging to the ‘whole’ or the ‘future’. The boss may be convinced that he is using a ‘flawless’ rational thought process, yet the output is severely hampered by data gaps. The reason for this is a lack of perspective. It is practically impossible for a single person to know absolutely all variables of a complex problem. It is for a similar reason that more than one camera are used at sports events.
2. In the second scenario, the boss can leave the decision entirely to its employees and then let it happen without any questions. This could be considered as a purely democratic process, but is in fact not perfect because the involvement of everyone (including the boss) is not achieved – in a large population, this could actually be considered anarchy. The pitfall is that the employees may come up with a solution that is ultimately detrimental to the company, or even to themselves (to the whole, or future) because they lack information/knowledge/wisdom that only the boss has (the leading figure is usually not in that position because of sheer luck!).
3. The third decisional process can be presented as the boss discussing with his employees and reaching a consensus. In this scenario, the employees can propose solutions, but the boss may put their ideas in perspective and explain why he thinks it might work or not. It is a highly logical, inclusive, rational process granted that all the information is “put on the table”. In a small group, this is probably the best way to solve problems.
It should be clear from these three scenarios, that what plagues both democracy and autocracy is information alienation. On one hand, we have a boss, or manager, that may lack some hands-on ‘nuts-&-bolts’ detailed information; he is disconnected from the ‘reality’. On the other, we have employees that may lack ‘big-picture’ or larger-scale mechanism knowledge; they are disconnected from the whole. It is only by bridging the two parties together that a truly best solution can be achieved with greatest confidence. This is what I would call complete information consolidation (CIC). I believe that CIC management is the next step in the evolution of governance of our civilization and businesses. The challenge is to achieve complete bilateral information transparency across the system’s hierarchy and protect the integrity of this information. It is a big challenge, but I believe it can be accomplished.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
The Pitfall of Expectations
I had initially breached the topic of expectations with a rough opening about selfishness. I had written this before reading ‘The Selfish Gene’ by Richard Dawkins. In synchronistic fashion, I have since started and finished that book (pure hazard, I swear!) and realized that my introduction was a clumsy attempt compared to the breadth and depth of Dawkin’s lucid presentation. His narrative concerning selfishness is perhaps less philosophical and more down-to-Earth than my initial ramblings (you’ll never know), but I have to say it is more to the point. So I invite all to read this very very important book. Now let’s get back to more insignificant e-scribbles…
Most people naturally have expectations. They expect the sun to be there when they wake up. They expect warm water for their shower, their loved ones to be still alive in a week, milk available at the grocery store, and many other things, some of which more trivial than others, and some they shouldn’t expect at all. Expectations are necessary to function sanely on a daily basis. Otherwise, people can, in the worst case, become excessively and unnecessarily paranoid.
However, in my view, having expectations is one of the strongest relationship abrasives. One of the ultimate joys of living is having the feeling of being free (I invite anyone to contest that). When person A expects something out of person B, person B’s freedom becomes constrained, or stressed, by the expectations of person A. To put it in another way, let person A and person B both define their versions of what they want to do or what they need to accomplish in order to achieve their respective personal happiness; if both visions are mutually exclusive, then both person A and person B can carry their vision satisfactorily in freedom to the highest degree. However, if the fulfillment of person A’s happiness is dependent on actions from person B, then person B’s ideal personal fulfillment is thus limited or constrained due to person A. In a general sense, expectations are part of a selfish, delusional behavior and represent a stress applied to people’s behaviors. It should be obvious then, that in a relationship without any form of expectations, all parties will keep their freedom and thus they will all likely be happier because there will be no opportunity for deception. There can only be deceptions if there are expectations.
But here’s the catch…and here lies a paradox; I said earlier that one of the joy of living is the freedom feeling. If being free contributes to our happiness, so does social contact. We are social animals. We yearn to love and more especially to be loved. So we enter into many social contracts to fulfill our wants and desires. Since we all come from different backgrounds and [sarcasm] each one of us knows best how to live [/sarcasm], a complex gambling game sprouts up. The famous lyrics from the group ‘NIRVANA’ come to mind: “Come, as you are, as I want you to be”. We jostle, trick and manipulate words and actions in order to fit in. To win. Some push their ideas aggressively. Some play a quiet game. Others don’t want to play the game. There are winners and losers, and they’re not always the same. I feel it’s alright to know what we like and dislike. But I think it’s not alright to impose these things on others. To do so is selfish.
When selfishness and its ramifications are fully understood and accepted, the veil of expectation falls and relationships become less strained. Controlling one’s expectations, and even abolishing them altogether, is, in my mind, the true moral high ground of altruism; not giving $50 to a charity and patting ourselves on the back and boasting about it at some cocktail.
In conclusion, here is an analogy that my mother presented to me as a child: “Relationships are like a bird. The bird can chose to land in your hand, but if it doesn’t you shouldn’t waste your time chasing it, you will just scare it away more. Once it’s in your hand, if you leave your hand wide open and do nothing, it might likely fly away. Alternately, if you close your hand tight to trap the bird, it will probably chirp madly and try to bite you; it won’t be happy. But if you cusp your hand lightly and show the bird some affection and devotion, it might stick around a bit longer.”
Most people naturally have expectations. They expect the sun to be there when they wake up. They expect warm water for their shower, their loved ones to be still alive in a week, milk available at the grocery store, and many other things, some of which more trivial than others, and some they shouldn’t expect at all. Expectations are necessary to function sanely on a daily basis. Otherwise, people can, in the worst case, become excessively and unnecessarily paranoid.
However, in my view, having expectations is one of the strongest relationship abrasives. One of the ultimate joys of living is having the feeling of being free (I invite anyone to contest that). When person A expects something out of person B, person B’s freedom becomes constrained, or stressed, by the expectations of person A. To put it in another way, let person A and person B both define their versions of what they want to do or what they need to accomplish in order to achieve their respective personal happiness; if both visions are mutually exclusive, then both person A and person B can carry their vision satisfactorily in freedom to the highest degree. However, if the fulfillment of person A’s happiness is dependent on actions from person B, then person B’s ideal personal fulfillment is thus limited or constrained due to person A. In a general sense, expectations are part of a selfish, delusional behavior and represent a stress applied to people’s behaviors. It should be obvious then, that in a relationship without any form of expectations, all parties will keep their freedom and thus they will all likely be happier because there will be no opportunity for deception. There can only be deceptions if there are expectations.
But here’s the catch…and here lies a paradox; I said earlier that one of the joy of living is the freedom feeling. If being free contributes to our happiness, so does social contact. We are social animals. We yearn to love and more especially to be loved. So we enter into many social contracts to fulfill our wants and desires. Since we all come from different backgrounds and [sarcasm] each one of us knows best how to live [/sarcasm], a complex gambling game sprouts up. The famous lyrics from the group ‘NIRVANA’ come to mind: “Come, as you are, as I want you to be”. We jostle, trick and manipulate words and actions in order to fit in. To win. Some push their ideas aggressively. Some play a quiet game. Others don’t want to play the game. There are winners and losers, and they’re not always the same. I feel it’s alright to know what we like and dislike. But I think it’s not alright to impose these things on others. To do so is selfish.
When selfishness and its ramifications are fully understood and accepted, the veil of expectation falls and relationships become less strained. Controlling one’s expectations, and even abolishing them altogether, is, in my mind, the true moral high ground of altruism; not giving $50 to a charity and patting ourselves on the back and boasting about it at some cocktail.
In conclusion, here is an analogy that my mother presented to me as a child: “Relationships are like a bird. The bird can chose to land in your hand, but if it doesn’t you shouldn’t waste your time chasing it, you will just scare it away more. Once it’s in your hand, if you leave your hand wide open and do nothing, it might likely fly away. Alternately, if you close your hand tight to trap the bird, it will probably chirp madly and try to bite you; it won’t be happy. But if you cusp your hand lightly and show the bird some affection and devotion, it might stick around a bit longer.”
Monday, May 3, 2010
More Human than Human
The other day, I needed to set a few things up IT-wise so I go see the IT-guy. They don't have robots doing these jobs (yet) so I thought this human being might be worth talking to, you know, to mutually brighten our day with genuine human contact. But that 'humanity' link seems increasingly rare these days. Perhaps the spiritual connection between two beings is not all that human after all (?). The poor creature was a bit surprised at my interlocution and reacted somewhat defensively (his facial expression of panic gave it away). His reply was somewhere along these lines (which I exaggerate and twist out of reality to an extent that the quote loses its nature as a quote and becomes a lie, but a true lie nonetheless): "Please don't talk to me. There's a much less efficient and impersonal way to do this!" I was disrupting the pattern. I was disrupting the process.
That's what we have become (or are increasingly becoming): processes or managers of processes. We are progressively called upon to use our judgment less and less. We have to follow orders, excercise guidelines, not our brain. We live in a large system that grows in connectivity every day. It's a pattern bigger than you and me and a movement stronger than your will. It is a recurrent theme that pulsates in expansion and can't be stopped by you or me. I think back to Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene' and remember clearly his line of thought concerning the evolution of more complex organisms. Smaller 'things' eating other small 'things' which creates a more complex 'thing' which can eat or incorporate other 'things' to become even more complex. Lather, rinse, repeat over millions of years (you have no idea how long that is - no, really, you don't) and you create highly complex organisms of a variety so colourful that we have to invent God as an answer because our brain is too lazy to imagine a more plausible (but no less exceptional) reality. There is a lot more to evolution than Darwin saw or intended. It is VIP. It runs exclusive and high class in the Universe.
Will we ever become like the 'Borgs' of Star Trek? Or will we keep our independent thoughts even as our species achieve ever higher orders of organized complexity? We live a nice paradox at the moment. We can still think freely, yet the interconnectivity benefits and imperils us all. Perhaps our 'recently' evolved consciousness is essential to higher-order evolution..? But how long will it last? Time will tell. Time will tell...
That's what we have become (or are increasingly becoming): processes or managers of processes. We are progressively called upon to use our judgment less and less. We have to follow orders, excercise guidelines, not our brain. We live in a large system that grows in connectivity every day. It's a pattern bigger than you and me and a movement stronger than your will. It is a recurrent theme that pulsates in expansion and can't be stopped by you or me. I think back to Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene' and remember clearly his line of thought concerning the evolution of more complex organisms. Smaller 'things' eating other small 'things' which creates a more complex 'thing' which can eat or incorporate other 'things' to become even more complex. Lather, rinse, repeat over millions of years (you have no idea how long that is - no, really, you don't) and you create highly complex organisms of a variety so colourful that we have to invent God as an answer because our brain is too lazy to imagine a more plausible (but no less exceptional) reality. There is a lot more to evolution than Darwin saw or intended. It is VIP. It runs exclusive and high class in the Universe.
Will we ever become like the 'Borgs' of Star Trek? Or will we keep our independent thoughts even as our species achieve ever higher orders of organized complexity? We live a nice paradox at the moment. We can still think freely, yet the interconnectivity benefits and imperils us all. Perhaps our 'recently' evolved consciousness is essential to higher-order evolution..? But how long will it last? Time will tell. Time will tell...
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Perth; Part II
After my first spin through Western Australia, I wasn't really expecting to come back any time soon. There was a feeble possibility in my mind but it was all vaguely stagnating in the fantasy ether. So I was slightly caught off guard when a short (5 weeks) secondment to Perth materialized suddenly due to the departure of my 'equivalent' down under for other (greener? who knows) pastures. I'm bascially here to help find a needle in a haystack and I can't say much more...corporate secrets! No, really, the technical work details are not all that important to my rant/blurb...
I feel like a fish taken out of his little pond and thrown into this other very different pond. The algae are different. The water is saltier. The little plastic castle is a different shade of grey but the water is just as wet...It 'works' even though I'm not used to it. There's more to life than breathing...
As kids, we were taught that water doesn't taste anything but we grow up to know that's not really the case. There are subtleties. In contrast to my first impressions, Perth is quite a bit more enjoyable this time since I have more time to accumulate more 'impression' data. Usually, with more data, more accurate conclusions can be made. But it's actually tough to wrap my head and feelings around Perth. Esthetically, it's quite a nice city. It's clean, crisp, well cut and well groomed. There are a variety of interesting trees, bird calls here and there and nice weather overall. There are many good coffee shops that make exquisite coffee (even more so than France, and Canada doesn't even compare) which is a huger perk in my biased view. The food is good to excellent. I won't comment on the wine, that's another story/rant, but it's decent. The people are generally friendly, but not overly welcoming. Is it introversion? Indifference? Xenophobia? It's hard to tell.
I'm staying near the business district in West Perth. People are very sharply dressed, especially women. There's just so many combinations men can use; beige pants and blue shirt. B;ue shirt and grey pants. Grey pants and white shirt. Add a twist of black and pink and you've covered all bases. There's actually not much variance. Many drive expensive cars. All talk on cell phones and text on their blackberries. At first glance, one would be inclined to label this 'community' as materialistic show-offs. On the whole, and for no specific reason, I find the place pretty insipid. Bland. If this city would disapear overnight, I feel it would be quite inconsequential in terms of heritage lost as a species. Perhaps that's what it is. Everything is just so similar. Repeated. It has no distinct character. No soul. It sits in the middle. It's average. I walk to get a sandwich and I see men in pressed pants, shiny shoes and collared shirts, women wearing serious or skimpy dresses, but always looking classy, like clones out of a Battlestar Glactica episode. Always walking fast. Everyone stuck in their little bubble, only connected to the World by their cell phone or Blackberry. Everyone stands out but no one stands out.
Perhaps that's just the business district and not a good representation of the whole and I need to seriously expand my vision. I did have the chance to step out of this bubble a few times and the populace does seem to become slightly more colourful...
I'll keep digesting the sights and sounds and report back later, hopefully to eat up some of my own words...
Sorry Aussies, you haven't won me over yet! Not in Perth anyway...
Monday, March 29, 2010
Cambodia; First Impressions
We crossed the border to Cambodia from Vietnam in a fast boat. After a few formalities at the border and some slight bribing because we didn’t have pictures for the visa, we continued on the Mekong all the way to Pnomh Penh. We could tell we were in another country. It was all the little things, like the number and types of cars, the way construction sites were set up, the buildings, the people, how they went about, the temperature, the humidity, the smells that all came together to create a different impression on the mind. Our short time in the capital allowed us to visit the royal palace and get acquainted with the history, politics and religion of Cambodians.
It’s difficult to describe, but the people in Cambodia felt more genuine. I felt that their good manners were not forced and that their greetings were heartfelt rather than methodical. Perhaps it was the contrast with Communist Vietnam. Perhaps it was something else, more elusive and intangible. But, in a way, I felt more at home in Cambodia.
It was time to hit the road again. In about 6 hours, we winded through flat but beautiful scenery all the way to Siem Reap, the tourist exploration base for discovering the magnificent Angkor temples. We were nestled in a nice B&B owned by a French ex-pat and this leg of our trip felt like a vacation within a vacation.
For three days, we explored the imposing Angkor temples. There are no words to describe the scope and lore evident in this majestic place. In its heyday, I suspect Angkor could have been the most beautiful civilization on Earth.
Temples after temples were filled with intricate carvings and pulsed with serenity. Angkor was built for the gods, and we could feel that.
Snaking in back trails and shortcuts, we explored the site mostly on bike, often stopping on foot to discover hidden nooks and crannies with the help of our excellent and friendly guide.
Angkor and the many related temples left a strong impression on me. It has to be one of the most magical, awe-inspiring human-made sites I have ever visited.
The sun kept shining and shone warmly for our entire time in Cambodia, which evidently contributed to our appreciation of the place. We were now making our way to Tonle Sap Lake, which is the largest in Cambodia and supports a semi-nomadic fisherman lifestyle for ~ 1 million people.
Passing through floating villages and boat-towable dwellings, we made our way farther from land connections and deeper through a submerged forest to a small hidden village on stilts.
Although remote, the village had a cell-phone tower installed; a testament to this technology’s success at helping less-developed communities communicate.
We spent a night there in one of the inhabitants’ house and learned about their way of life. It was our most rustic sleepover of the trip but we felt comfortable and it was a pleasant experience.
My main worry was for the future of the Lake and its inhabitants. They clearly lead an unlegislated fishing lifestyle that is unsustainable. They use nets with the smallest mesh possible, trapping essentially everything. They illegally use boatloads of car batteries and electrodes to systematically stun all life forms and harvest powerless fish, usually at night, when there’s less chance of being caught.
Angkor and the many related temples left a strong impression on me. It has to be one of the most magical, awe-inspiring human-made sites I have ever visited.
The sun kept shining and shone warmly for our entire time in Cambodia, which evidently contributed to our appreciation of the place. We were now making our way to Tonle Sap Lake, which is the largest in Cambodia and supports a semi-nomadic fisherman lifestyle for ~ 1 million people.
Passing through floating villages and boat-towable dwellings, we made our way farther from land connections and deeper through a submerged forest to a small hidden village on stilts.
Although remote, the village had a cell-phone tower installed; a testament to this technology’s success at helping less-developed communities communicate.
We spent a night there in one of the inhabitants’ house and learned about their way of life. It was our most rustic sleepover of the trip but we felt comfortable and it was a pleasant experience.
My main worry was for the future of the Lake and its inhabitants. They clearly lead an unlegislated fishing lifestyle that is unsustainable. They use nets with the smallest mesh possible, trapping essentially everything. They illegally use boatloads of car batteries and electrodes to systematically stun all life forms and harvest powerless fish, usually at night, when there’s less chance of being caught.
The Lake is so vast, that with the handful of rangers available, poaching remains a common way of life. Living a semi-nomadic water lifestyle, the difficulty for garbage management is evident; the lake manages the trash by spreading it or sending it downstream. What’s alarming is that the population is continuing to grow…
Cambodia, overall, was marvelous from beginning to end. We enjoyed the weather, the accommodations, the food, the sights, and most importantly the people, who have suffered so much under Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime. The most significant items I brought back from the country, other than memories, are a couple drawings and a painting. Because the Khmer rouge carried systematic massacres of the educated and cultural elite not even a generation ago, it is in my view an important testament to the resilience of the human race and that people in particular. Those reminders thus hold a significant and precious meaning to me. I hope to go back one day to again have this feeling of submission, pacifism and strength that I never felt elsewhere, in order to replenish my own.
Cambodia, overall, was marvelous from beginning to end. We enjoyed the weather, the accommodations, the food, the sights, and most importantly the people, who have suffered so much under Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime. The most significant items I brought back from the country, other than memories, are a couple drawings and a painting. Because the Khmer rouge carried systematic massacres of the educated and cultural elite not even a generation ago, it is in my view an important testament to the resilience of the human race and that people in particular. Those reminders thus hold a significant and precious meaning to me. I hope to go back one day to again have this feeling of submission, pacifism and strength that I never felt elsewhere, in order to replenish my own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)