Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Contexts of Understanding

In relation to any 'reality' there are always two apparent contexts. A few examples are that one cannot have a story without a book being read, or a movie without a movie reel in a projector, or a virtual reality without a computational process. In each of these examples the first is an empirical context (objects, places and events) and the second is a transcendent context (that which creates and sustains the empirical context).

There is also a unified context, which is the context that contains both apparent contexts. For example, a room containing both a book and a reader with an imagination is the context in which the reading of the book operates (transcendent) and the imaginative experience of the story manifests (empirical). These are all just simple worldly examples to illustrate some aspects of the situation. In the case of our own reality and world-experience things are more subtle but still manifesting an apparent empirical and transcendent as well as a unified context. The two apparent contexts are just different perspectives on the one unified context, hence they are not actually separate contexts, but only appear to be separate.

Although there is one unified context and two apparent contexts, when contemplating the nature of our reality most people are unaware of the unified context and fixate on only one of the apparent contexts and assume that it is the only context. Some are grounded in one apparent context and deny the other, thereby only understanding half of the situation, and some attempt to mix both apparent contexts into one and thereby get very confused.

Below is a simplified map of the contexts and a brief commentary using the VR analogy.  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Simplified Anatomy of the
Global Systemic Crisis and
How to Heal Civilisation

The crisis can be briefly described as systemic, self-perpetuating, persistent illusion, suffering & destruction.

This analysis describes some salient features of the anatomy of the global systemic crisis, introducing the anatomy stage by stage then discussing how best to initiate a process of holistic healing that can result in lasting peace and creative flourishing.

Brief Summary

Just as life arises from self-perpetuating creative feedback loops (autocatalytic sets) so too does the global systemic crisis arise from self-perpetuating destructive feedback loops. Fundamental illusions give rise to entrenched delusions, which result in suffering and destruction, which are interpreted and responded to in delusional ways, thus reinforcing a destructive feedback loop of delusion, suffering and destruction. The illusions arise from a single source but give rise to many stages of interlocking feedback loops that form a feedback network.

In theory it is possible that if any single stage can be totally healed and kept healthy then this will feed-through the entire feedback network but in practice this is extremely difficult because all other stages will seek to undermine the healthy stage or will compensate to exclude the healthy stage from the network therefore maintaining the overall destructive feedback network.

To heal the whole feedback network the most effective approach is to identify many stages where positive influence can effectively be applied and heal these as much as possible thereby diminishing the destructive feedback and augmenting the creative feedback. This will begin a healing process and the situation will change slightly, whereon we must iterate this again by identifying many stages where positive influence can be applied and healing these as much as possible. As this process is applied again and again the whole system will go through many phases of a healing process that will diminish the overall destructive feedback and augment to overall creative feedback.  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Clarifying Contexts to Avoid Confusion
and Develop Mutual Understanding

This article is intended to hopefully help minimise the likelihood of unnecessary confusion and conflict. When we communicate we use words and therefore ideas. This leads to many misunderstandings even amongst people who fundamentally agree, let alone between people who are coming from entirely different perspectives.

The aim of my work isn't to just bring together people with a particular perspective, but to bring together many different perspectives and to work together towards mutual understanding. In light of this please contemplate these issues...  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

For those interested in a deeper understanding of the I Ching, I.e. how does it work? What is it really? And what effect does it have in the world? I will here endeavour to provide some assistance. First I give information on in depth scientific research, which has been ongoing over the past three decades, into the interplay between consciousness and 'physical' processes. Then I quote extracts from recent studies, by Ervin Laszlo, into what some call the Akashic Field or the Unified Quantum Vacuum. Then finally I quote from an introductory text into the I Ching and invite you to contemplate all of these ideas in light of each other. This may help you come to a deeper understanding, not only of the I Ching, but of consciousness, the physical universe, the process of change and transformation and the journey of life...  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

I have noticed that there is a degree of anti-rationalism in the collective discourse, where people identify rationalism as a major problem in the world. This is quite understandable due to the injustices perpetrated throughout history in the name of rationalism, but the entire situation is based on a misconception, which I will endeavour to clarify here.

The cause of the many problems that are blamed on rationalism is actually “narrow context rationalism”, which is really a form of pseudo-rationalism because when it is applied in the wider context it is entirely irrational. But pseudo-rationalists often label rationalists as pseudo-rationalist so the terms are quite confused in the collective discourse. But an analysis of their contexts can distinguish them from each other...  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

To some people it may seem to be an obvious contradiction to claim to be a rationalist and a sceptic (open minded enquiry without pre-conceptions) and yet to call upon “the wisdom of the I Ching” as I do in various places. But this perception is based on a subtle misconception, which I will endeavour to clear up here.

I will first give some background on the general type of rationalist enquiry used, then on my own enquiry and its results, and finishing with some wisdom from the I Ching.

Consider the case of the Turing test, designed by Alan Turing around 1950. What was at issue was whether an AI program was merely a set of mechanistic responses or whether it was reasonable to accept that it was engaging in conscious thought processes or more generally 'sentience', the “state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness” *

But these terms were too difficult to quantify. “However, if we consider the more precise—and somehow related—question whether a digital computer can do well in a certain kind of game that Turing describes (“The Imitation Game”), then—at least in Turing's eyes—we do have a question that admits of precise discussion... The phrase “The Turing Test” is sometimes used more generally to refer to some kinds of behavioural tests for the presence of mind, or thought, or intelligence in putatively minded entities. So, for example, it is sometimes suggested that The Turing Test is prefigured in Descartes' Discourse on the Method.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Genuine thought as opposed to mechanistic response is not something that we can just surgically open the brain to distinguish in an objective manner. It is impossible to objectively prove one's own sentience to another, let alone objectively prove the sentience of another. We only ever take these things for granted in each other, but merely assuming this without questioning it is not a sceptical, rationalist position to take. But through constant interactions with others we have in a sense performed an ongoing Turing test of our own in order to come to trust that other human beings are indeed sentient and are not merely inert mechanisms engaging in programmed responses. We directly experience our own sentience (thinking, feeling, perceptual awareness, etc) and we observe from birth that others behave in a manner that is strongly suggestive that they too 'experience' sentience. From this we infer that they too are sentient.

Here I consider a variation of the Turing test, which does not involve an imitation game where the subject under enquiry is required to mimic a typical human being, but rather, the subject (I Ching) is instead required to mimic a wise and perceptive sage, one who can cut through the unessential complications and penetrate to the core of an issue and then provide succinct and holistically appropriate advice and insight into a situation. This will help discern whether it is just a random process that credulous fools are deceived by, or whether there is some measure of intelligent response in the process. Exactly where and how this intelligence operates is not considered here, but merely its presence or absence...  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Is there a world beyond the mind?

Your body, other people, places, objects, planet Earth, the physical universe, the sciences, the perennial wisdom, all the traditions old and new and the whole of history and future hopes, do you not experience them or come to know of them only through the mind? Could you ever know these things other than through the mind? You may believe there is a world beyond the mind or someone or some text may say there is, but that belief, person and text, are they not only experienced through the mind? If you realised who you truly are here and now, would the contents of the mind still enthral you?

Without understanding the mind can you truly understand anything?

If you unconsciously assume that there is a world beyond the mind and you also unconsciously assume that you are an individual being within that world. Given these assumptions, questions such as those above cannot be seen as anything other than solipsism.

But what if there is no world beyond the mind and you are not the worldly being that you have assumed that you are? What if there is only an unconsciously intersubjective co-creation of a collective 'dream' that gives rise to occasions of experience by seemingly individual, ego-oriented conscious minds? Naïve realism leads us to assume the unequivocal reality of the world that is portrayed by the contents of the mind, but if we do away with this naïve assumption and remain truly sceptical, what can we know about the world? The most direct way is to come to know yourself because that is the only part of reality that you have direct access to. Hence “Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakes.” (Carl Jung). This is the path of yoga and all forms of mysticism. But there are other approaches...  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

I am writing from the southern hemisphere and here we are approaching the winter solstice, so to mark this occasion I will relay some wisdom from the I Ching that talks about the winter solstice. At the time of first publishing my website (www.anandavala.info) in October 2005, I asked the I Ching for a message of reassurance that will accompany the work as a whole.

Question: What message do you have for the people with which to reassure them, here in this work?  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Thoughts on the Outline of a Unified Science

Firstly, what does “unified science” mean?

Unified: (1) formed or united into a whole ... (2) operating as a unit; e.g. "a unified utility system" [1]

Science: (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice...

The word science comes through the Old French, and is derived from the Latin word scientia for knowledge, which in turn comes from scio. 'I know'. The Indo-European root means to discern or to separate, akin to Sanskrit chyati, he cuts off, Greek schizein, to split, Latin scindere, to split. From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, science or scientia meant any systematic recorded knowledge. Science therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that philosophy had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the word corresponding to science also carries this meaning. [2]

Thus “unified science” refers to “any systematic knowledge or practice” that is “formed or united into a whole” and “operating as a unit”.

How does this relate to empirical science?  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Also see Thoughts on the Outline of a Unified Science.

In previous articles I briefly addressed the issue of the memetic war between politicised-science and politicised-religion (Naïve Realism and Empiricism), and also provided a little information that may help lead us in the direction of reclaiming genuine science for humanity (Scientistic Heresy). But what about reclaiming genuine religion for humanity?

First we need to understand what religion is. For many people in nominally Christian or Islamic cultures this is a very confused issue due to centuries of political-abuses of religion.

To explain what religion is we will need to first go back to its source, which is mysticism. The term 'mysticism' first arose in relation to the Eleusinian Mysteries however it has become a blanket term for all spiritual paths that revolve around personal contact with and direct communion with the deeper reality. This direct personal connection is the root of all religion. (see Virtual Reality Analogy Alongside Science and Mysticism)  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Virtual Reality Analogy Alongside Science and Mysticism

For some background context see the articles: Computational Metaphysics and Vedic Metaphysics,   Hiranyagarbha,   Scientistic Heresy,   Reclaiming Genuine Religion for Humanity,   Thoughts on the Outline of a Unified Science and also see Metaphysical Context.

I very briefly describe some aspects of the virtual reality analogy and then give quotes from sources of scientific and mystic wisdom that can be seen in a new light when interpreted through this analogy. I will leave the interpretation up to you.  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Scientistic Heresy

Also see Thoughts on the Outline of a Unified Science.

The value and power of the scientific method when applied properly is plain to see, however too often it is used for political purposes, to suppress enquiry into areas that challenge unquestioned beliefs and to push certain agendas. This is a clear abuse of the scientific method, one that not only the scientific community must address, but the whole of humanity because science has become a fundamental guiding principle in our civilisation.

There is a prevailing belief that science is somehow immune to human weakness, that scientists somehow have "minds washed clean from opinions" (Francis Bacon) but this is a very unscientific approach to science. Such an obvious self-deception at the core of the scientific community leaves it (and our entire civilisation) open to disaster.

This obvious contradiction in science is largely a result of the particulars of the origins of modern western science, as a reaction to the trauma of previous abuses of reason (see Naïve Realism and Empiricism). But one cannot fight un-reason with un-reason, and science must question the motives behind its entrenched position in regards to many subjects. There is no place for the politics of manipulation within a genuine scientific method.

There has been for some time a propaganda-war between politicised-science (Scientism) and politicised-Christianity and many minds have been caught in the cross-fire. For those who have been deceived into believing that science is actually what it claims to be, below are a few links that illustrate some of the cracks in the otherwise smooth façade of self-deceptive propaganda.

If we are to reclaim genuine science for humanity then we must slip through cracks such as these and escape the fools debate. (also see Reclaiming Genuine Religion for Humanity and Virtual Reality Analogy Alongside Science and Mysticism)

To help those that are willing to help themselves, this is just a brief sample of documents on the subject to serve as a jumping off point for further research.  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

In a recent conversation here on NCN I indirectly learnt a great deal. Even though it was not what one would call a functional conversation it was nevertheless a very interesting experience...

Below is an article compiled from my part in the conversation. It addresses many issues that are central to the conduct of a progressive discourse, which can result in cooperative solution seeking that is grounded in reality and can be genuinely effective even in the face of cynical attacks and denial. These are just thoughts on the matter.  More >

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

Here are some informative and uplifting insights about the current process of global transformation, in the form of excerpts from an article in a recent World Goodwill newsletter.

It is also related to articles of my own about global awakening.

Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.

What's the connection between Pangea Day and Unified Science?

Firstly, a bit about Pangea Day:

“Pangea Day taps the power of film to strengthen tolerance and compassion while uniting millions of people to build a better future.

In a world where people are often divided by borders, difference, and conflict, it's easy to lose sight of what we all have in common. Pangea Day seeks to overcome that — to help people see themselves in others — through the power of film.

On May 10, 2008 — Pangea Day — sites in Cairo, Kigali, London, Los Angeles, Mumbai, and Rio de Janeiro will be linked live to produce a program of powerful films, visionary speakers, and uplifting music.

The program will be broadcast live to the world through the Internet, television, digital cinemas, and mobile phones.

Of course, movies alone can't change the world. But the people who watch them can. So following May 10, 2008, Pangea Day organizers will facilitate community-building activities around the world by connecting inspired viewers with numerous organizations that are already doing groundbreaking work.”

The Power of Understanding

Both believe in the power of understanding. Beings are inherently “good natured” and exhibit cruelty only when they are confused and traumatised. The better one's understanding of a situation the more appropriate and effective one's participation will be. It is through communication that we develop mutual understanding.

If we are to have peace we first need a common understanding of our shared humanity, but this is just a start. First we must expand our concept of 'us' to include all of humanity, but the universe does not end there and unless we have a broader sense of 'us' we will continue to encounter systemic conflict, such as between humanity and the rest of the ecosystem.