Why don’t they “understand” us? – you and me and…Where I’ve gone with this is in the direction of a (my terms) “crisis in meaning.” Looking for meaning, for directions, answers, solutions – the temptation has been to look “outside” of oneself: to the past, prophets and ancient texts. How to remain “in the present” even as it hurries up. Are we “up’ to these tasks, or will we be tempted to yield much of our being to…?

Why don’t they “understand” us? – you and me and…Where I’ve gone with this is in the direction of a (my terms) “crisis in meaning.” Looking for meaning, for directions, answers, solutions – the temptation has been to look “outside” of oneself: to the past, prophets and ancient texts. How to remain “in the present” even as it hurries up. Are we “up’ to these tasks, or will we be tempted to yield much of our being to…?

Yes, time is speeding up, but it has nothing to do with the railroads or television or the Internet. These technologies disrupt our traditional ontology of time and distance, but while this accounts for the ways in which we re-imagine time in a quantitative sense, it does not give consideration for a qualitative shift that so many are experiencing. Maybe instead of saying that time is speeding up, we should say that history– personal, collective and otherwise– is what is speeding up. People are attaining consciousness at accelerating rates. And with the help of others, I believe I have come to understand what is happening. If you’d like to hear more, please feel free to contact me.

Still, I wonder why everyone isn’t where I am (wherever I am) and this frustrates me. As an example, look at the picture Harvey posted here. Why is it that some people see what’s so obviously going on here, but most people do not? I wonder what I can do to inspire consciousness in others, as consciousness was inspired in me. I know that I do not have the power to make consciousness happen, but still I am simply, phenomenally compelled.

Yes, time is speeding up, but it has nothing to do with the railroads or television or the Internet. These technologies disrupt our traditional ontology of time and distance, but while this accounts for the ways in which we re-imagine time in a quantitative sense, it does not give consideration for a qualitative shift that so many are experiencing. Maybe instead of saying that time is speeding up, we should say that history– personal, collective and otherwise– is what is speeding up. People are attaining consciousness at accelerating rates. And with the help of others, I believe I have come to understand what is happening. If you’d like to hear more, please feel free to contact me.

Still, I wonder why everyone isn’t where I am (wherever I am) and this frustrates me. As an example, look at the picture Harvey posted here. Why is it that some people see what’s so obviously going on here, but most people do not? I wonder what I can do to inspire consciousness in others, as consciousness was inspired in me. I know that I do not have the power to make consciousness happen, but still I am simply, phenomenally compelled.

Practicing hatha yoga seems very important to me to “slow” the world, to come into the body in gravity and “relax” into the gravity of gravity.

Doing “fieldwork” with Mayan Indians years ago, I became aware (how deeply?) of how they consider that we share spirits with other animals – and “join” with their animal spirits often while asleep. As well, they consider that the earth is our “mother” and we must preserve “her” for some seven generations.

I love kids (of most species – sorry about those “condo bugs” and mosquitoes, though.) Touching, moving, watching, tending to and with. I am a teacher, after all: across lines, time(s) – hoping to somehow inspire their futures.

Lately, I been wondering how to help create “meaning” in a global world which is “looking for answers” to the questions you are asking in wonder.

Harvey

What if, what is the human is no longer the question? Yes, to understand the human is to better understand ourselves and our limits, but does that not limit ourselves? Can we not understand the animals? The “higher” mammals understand us much differently than we understand ourselves, so who is to say that their interpretation is incorrect or invalid. Is there not empathy between a person and the dog that lives with that person? Elephants can create self-portraits: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5203120.stm
Why have we not begun species to species communication? (This must sound like the thought process of a drug-addled mind, but I have been without the use of my “mind enhancers” for sometime now and still believe these ideas are possible and valid.)Gorillas understand sign language. Dolphins saved some beached whales not to long ago, when humans who had been trying for some time failed. Without even being able to communicate with the other creatures on our planet, how can we expect to even be able to communicate with extraterrestrial life? Our concept of intelligence and what it is needs to be desperately relooked at. I was listening to a Podcast of a lecture by some professor at the University of Washington (???—forget, but am pretty sure). He was interested in contacting life outside of our planet, but believes that our concept of intelligence and life are too narrow, since we only understand our own biosphere. As a child I was obsessed with S.E.T.I. and spent much of my time in fear—I was young—and awe of the concept of meeting and interacting with other life. So, maybe, while an analysis of the human can be done through inner dialogue, I believe that this analysis could lead to isolation and misinterpreting the human. Do I think one should have inner dialogues—most definitely—but I think dialogue needs to be done human-to-human and human-to-animal. Does this mean one will tell their dog or cat about their day and expect the creature to understand? No. I mean we interact with creatures in different ways than we act within our constructed societies. We use different language—possibly more “primal.” (The term is not what I want, but I will use it to for time sake) The communication is more physical and sight based, yet emotions are there. I have been meaning to read When Species Meet by Donna Haraway—I have enjoyed her writing on the subject of cyborgs—and wonder if it could illuminate this subject a little better.

I enjoyed your comment: “The philosophers now technicians of ideas, much as engineers but with less imagination…” I wanted to be a philosophy major when I was in college, but found the course work less thought provoking and more formulaic. It seemed more rooted in arguments and “who said what” than about trying to reinterpret the surrounding world. It saw philosophy as something that is constantly being improved and fine-tuned—each thought/idea/theory was necessary to get to the next, therefore we should continue to learn about each person—usually white male. I understand why this is important to understand—to have sense of history allows one to better understand the present and prepare for the future—but it seems to me the philosophers were regarded as “gods” or beings that were not just regular people. Anyone can achieve; no one is special, but everyone is special…. (Shit, it is time for me to wrap this up—I’m up to a page already, but I have a few last comments/ideas)

-What is an idea? It is obviously no idea is ethereal. I refuse to believe it. I am curious how to find out what an idea physically looks like—I am convinced you can do it, but we might not have the technology to understand it. (This sounds strange but I think I am on to something here—we can read thought waves in computers and stuff)

-How does dialogue and communication physically affect the person? How is intelligence processed and stored? Do we need to understand parts ‘A’ and ‘B’ before gaining ‘C?’ To me, knowledge is not linear. Yes, certain concepts are necessary for others—math subjects come to mind—but a more concrete understanding comes from reinforcements that may not happen for sometime and may solidify multiple ideas at once.

-How does one raise a positive consciousness? Doesn’t this undermine the class structure of society or even the social norms? What would happen if there was an implosion of meaning? Would humanity rise to the challenge or cower in the shadows? Maybe the world needs metaphysical terrorists… hopefully, they give benefits and a 401(k).

Alas, I am rambling. Peace.

C. Rosewater.

What if, what is the human is no longer the question? Yes, to understand the human is to better understand ourselves and our limits, but does that not limit ourselves? Can we not understand the animals? The “higher” mammals understand us much differently than we understand ourselves, so who is to say that their interpretation is incorrect or invalid. Is there not empathy between a person and the dog that lives with that person? Elephants can create self-portraits: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/5203120.stm
Why have we not begun species to species communication? (This must sound like the thought process of a drug-addled mind, but I have been without the use of my “mind enhancers” for sometime now and still believe these ideas are possible and valid.)Gorillas understand sign language. Dolphins saved some beached whales not to long ago, when humans who had been trying for some time failed. Without even being able to communicate with the other creatures on our planet, how can we expect to even be able to communicate with extraterrestrial life? Our concept of intelligence and what it is needs to be desperately relooked at. I was listening to a Podcast of a lecture by some professor at the University of Washington (???—forget, but am pretty sure). He was interested in contacting life outside of our planet, but believes that our concept of intelligence and life are too narrow, since we only understand our own biosphere. As a child I was obsessed with S.E.T.I. and spent much of my time in fear—I was young—and awe of the concept of meeting and interacting with other life. So, maybe, while an analysis of the human can be done through inner dialogue, I believe that this analysis could lead to isolation and misinterpreting the human. Do I think one should have inner dialogues—most definitely—but I think dialogue needs to be done human-to-human and human-to-animal. Does this mean one will tell their dog or cat about their day and expect the creature to understand? No. I mean we interact with creatures in different ways than we act within our constructed societies. We use different language—possibly more “primal.” (The term is not what I want, but I will use it to for time sake) The communication is more physical and sight based, yet emotions are there. I have been meaning to read When Species Meet by Donna Haraway—I have enjoyed her writing on the subject of cyborgs—and wonder if it could illuminate this subject a little better.

I enjoyed your comment: “The philosophers now technicians of ideas, much as engineers but with less imagination…” I wanted to be a philosophy major when I was in college, but found the course work less thought provoking and more formulaic. It seemed more rooted in arguments and “who said what” than about trying to reinterpret the surrounding world. It saw philosophy as something that is constantly being improved and fine-tuned—each thought/idea/theory was necessary to get to the next, therefore we should continue to learn about each person—usually white male. I understand why this is important to understand—to have sense of history allows one to better understand the present and prepare for the future—but it seems to me the philosophers were regarded as “gods” or beings that were not just regular people. Anyone can achieve; no one is special, but everyone is special…. (Shit, it is time for me to wrap this up—I’m up to a page already, but I have a few last comments/ideas)

-What is an idea? It is obviously no idea is ethereal. I refuse to believe it. I am curious how to find out what an idea physically looks like—I am convinced you can do it, but we might not have the technology to understand it. (This sounds strange but I think I am on to something here—we can read thought waves in computers and stuff)

-How does dialogue and communication physically affect the person? How is intelligence processed and stored? Do we need to understand parts ‘A’ and ‘B’ before gaining ‘C?’ To me, knowledge is not linear. Yes, certain concepts are necessary for others—math subjects come to mind—but a more concrete understanding comes from reinforcements that may not happen for sometime and may solidify multiple ideas at once.

-How does one raise a positive consciousness? Doesn’t this undermine the class structure of society or even the social norms? What would happen if there was an implosion of meaning? Would humanity rise to the challenge or cower in the shadows? Maybe the world needs metaphysical terrorists… hopefully, they give benefits and a 401(k).

Alas, I am rambling. Peace.

C. Rosewater.