You already may have heard that I'd be coming back in January with a new series on the public television station nearest you. But you may not have heard exactly why. It's not just that I lack retirement skills, as my wife and co-editor, Judith, keeps reminding me. Or that the squeaky rocking chair on the front porch got on my nerves. I'm coming back because in tumultuous times like these I relish the company of people who try to make sense of the tumult. These are the people I'll bring to our new broadcast, Moyers & Company.
Journalism has long been for me a continuing course in adult education. Given what's happening in this country, it's time to sign up for more classes. The lack of civility and common sense that has paralyzed our democracy, the vast economic and social inequality that sends both left and right raging into the streets, the corrosive influence of money in politics - we're in a tailspin with little hope for a course correction from our elected leadership or corporate-dominated media. The need for voices of reason, simple and eloquent, has rarely been stronger. ,,,"
One item that many place implicit faith in is the "Big Bang Theory," which tells us that the universe began 15-20 billion years ago from a single point. Who can prove to us the reality of a phenomena that took place tens of billions of years ago? There's no instant replay when we're dealing with life and time. We can't be shown what happened that far in the past. There may be some evidence and reason to believe that this is how it happened, but at the end of the day we can't know for sure and that's where 'faith' comes in
In an article, in the U.S. News and World Report, physicist Roger Penrose theorized that the Big Bang might be one in a cycle of such events, suggesting that the universe has had multiple existences. This is common knowledge to one familiar with Vedic philosophy and cosmology, which very clearly indicates that the universe has had many births and deaths.
The centuries-old wisdom of the Vedic texts doesn't stop there. They claim that our universe is just one of many universes, a concept entertained by modern science and referred to as "the multiverse theory." The description given is that our universe is one mustard seed in a bag full of a practically uncountable number of mustard seeds.
"Hinduism is the only relgion whose timescales corespond, no doubt by accident, to those of modern scientific cosmology. A night of Brahama is 8.64 billion years long - about one half of the time since the Big Bang." It is said that men may not be the dreams of the gods, but rathere that the gods are the dreams of men."
Carl Sagan talks about "the gods." This clip is from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, episode 10, "The Edge of Forever."
"Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the idiosyncratic claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground. .....
"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
An adherent of possibilianism is called a possibilian. The possibilian perspective is distinguished from agnosticism in that it consists of an active exploration of novel possibilities and an emphasis on the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others. Possibilianism reflects the scientific temperament of creativity, testing, and tolerance for multiple ideas. ...."
As frequent visitors to his site well know my personal position regarding 'religion vs science' has always been in favor of science. However I have never felt that I could, with any certainty, comfortably call myself an atheist. Would I consider labeling myself a 'Posibilian'???
TEDxHouston - Dr. David Eagleman
Dr. Eagleman holds joint appointments in the Departments of Neuroscience and Psychiatry at the Baylor College of Medicine. His areas of scientific expertise include time perception, vision, synesthesia, and the intersection of neuroscience with the legal system. He directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action, and is the Founder and Director of Baylor College of Medicine's Initiative on Neuroscience and Law. Dr. Eagleman has written several neuroscience books, including Wednesday is Indigo Blue: Discovering the Brain of Synesthesia and Dethronement: The Secret Life of the Unconscious Brain. He has also written an internationally bestselling book of literary fiction, Sum, which was named a Best Book of 2009 by Barnes and Noble, New Scientist, and the Chicago Tribune. Dr. Eagleman has written for the New York Times, Discover Magazine, Slate, and New Scientist, and he appears regularly on National Public Radio to discuss both science and literature.
I can't remember when I first encountered the works of Jorge Luis Borges, since for countless years I have felt that they have always been a part of my being. As much as I am me, Borges and his incredible writing is an integral part of that persona.
He was Argentina’s favorite son, one of the great South American writers of the last century (along with Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Carlos Fuentes, and Mario Vargas Llosa), and the winner of 46 national and international literary prizes.
Borges was the master of the postmodern short story.
"The Garden of Forking Paths" (1941) presents the idea of forking paths through networks of time, none of which is the same, all of which are equal. Borges uses the recurring image of "a labyrinth that folds back upon itself in infinite regression" so we "become aware of all the possible choices we might make."[65] The forking paths have branches to represent these choices that ultimately lead to different endings. Borges saw man's search for meaning in a seemingly infinite universe as fruitless and instead uses the maze as a riddle for time, not space. [Wikipedia].
By the late 1950s, he had become completely blind. The irony of his blindness as a writer and lover of the written word was expressed in 'Seven Nights':
Nadie rebaje a lágrima o reproche esta declaración de la maestría de Dios, que con magnífica ironía me dio a la vez los libros y la noche.
No one should read self-pity or reproach Into this statement of the majesty Of God; who with such splendid irony, Granted me books and blindness at one touch
Borges was born in 1899, and to celebrate his 100th birthday (though he died in 1986), Philippe Molins directed the documentary, Jorge Luis Borges: The Mirror Man.
The film’s major strength is that it’s a bit of everything – part biography, part literary criticism, part hero-worship, part book reading, and part psychology. But most importantly, it is Borges.
Jorge Luis Borges: The Mirror Man - 1/6
The Modern Word, a favorite site for browsing, has a large section devoted to Borges.
Two very important people in my life considered the Histories of Herodotus as an invaluable aid to the comprehension of life. The first was my father, a professor of history at Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia. The second was Gregorio Bartoni. himself Greek-Italian, and the love of my life. Unfortunately both of them succumbed to an early death, but both had left me with a legacy: that of the legendary Herodotus.
I have over the years had various copies of 'The Histories of Herodotus' in my possession, with passages underlined, and notes written in the margins, and then in my nomadic travels and changes of location, left them for someone else to enjoy and benefit from their wisdom. Recently felt the desire/need to once again have Heredotus by my side, and through the magic of the Internet downloaded yet another version for my Kindle Reader.
A new kind of literature, that of written history, was created by Herodotus. And it was through his efforts that many of the most famous accounts of antiquity have been preserved for us, such as the heroic stand of King Leonidas and the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that 'The Lonely Planet', and all the other contemporary travel guides, had their beginning based on the fact that Herodotus was the first of the travel writers. His was an ability to collect and share accounts of his own travels, as well as the passing on of tales gathered from his fellow travelers. And yes, Count Almasy, also known as 'The English Patient', carried The Histories of Herodotus with him on all his travels.
Dr. Daniel Robinson, Philosophy Faculty, Oxford University / Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University in a lecture on Herodotus.
Herodotus and the Lamp of History - Part 1
.
Herodotus and the Lamp of History - Part 2
.
.
And I could not help but bring 'The Histories of Herodotus' into the 21st century with the creation of a fractal image which stylistically portrays but a representation of his many scrolls and and an inkpot used in the writing of his manuscrips all enveloped in the swirling mists of time.
The first thing everyone always says about Niall Ferguson is that he's far too glamorous to be an academic. So the surprise, when we meet, is his miserable little office – a bleak sliver of the London School of Economics, surely nowhere near sumptuous enough for the dashing professor. Lined with rows of empty bookshelves, it looks semi-vacated – but that's because it sort of is. "I'll be out of here in July," Ferguson says quickly, with the air of a man for whom July cannot come soon enough. "This has been great fun, but . . . well, you know . . ."
The historian has been living back in the UK for almost a year, the first time since leaving for the US in 2002, where he now teaches at Harvard. From the outside, it's looked like quite a successful stay; his Channel 4 series, Civilization, was broadly well-received, and the accompanying book is another dollop of vintage Ferguson history, devoted to the superiority of western civilisation. While here he's also been advising Michael Gove on the history curriculum in secondary schools, and now that the Tories, of whom he approves, are back in charge of the country, he must have found the political climate more to his tastes. But when I ask him for the single biggest change he's observed since leaving Britain, he replies with a kind of theatrical despair,
"I think the situation in British universities has gone from being parlous to being catastrophic. When you look at where British universities are going, and where Harvard's going, you'd have to really love other things about England to take the hit."
And he doesn't? "Well, I mean, what can I say?" he shrugs with a hollow little laugh. "There are lots of things I love about this country." But he couldn't sound less convincing, so I invite him to name some and he comes up with Radio 3 and the weather. "What else do I love about England? Hmm, there must be other things." He casts his mind about. "Well, the British private schools are really good. But they're the only institutions left in Britain that are really world class." And bam! There he is, not five minutes in, saying the sort of thing that drives liberal Britain mad.
The Glaswegian-born academic and presenter, 46, has been sending the left into fits of rage ever since he published Empire in 2003 – an elaborate cost-benefit analysis of the British empire, which concluded that it had, on the whole, been a good thing. The character of Irwin in Alan Bennett's play, The History Boys – a pushy, contrarian teacher who becomes a TV historian – is modelled on Ferguson, and ideological sparring matches with his leftwing critics, one of whom branded his work "startlingly obscene", have become something of a national sport.
Civilization program with Prof. Niall Ferguson of Harvard:
"The first programme in the series begins in 1420 when Ming China had a credible claim to be the most advanced civilization in the world: 'All Under Heaven'. England on the eve of the Wars of the Roses would have seemed quite primitive by contrast.
Yet the lead that China had established in technology was not to be translated into sustained economic growth. In China a monolithic empire stifled colonial expansion and economic innovation. In Europe political division bred competition.
The question for our own time is whether or not we have lost that competitive edge to a rapidly ascending Asia"
Part 1. Competition: a decentralisation of political and economic life, which created the launch pad for both nation states and capitalism. .
It has been proposed by some contemporary physicists that each of us is a 'Multidimensional Being'. We function in many different contexts of reality at once. Though we appear to be focused only here, there are also alternative forms of each being which function in parallel universes.
Curiously this is an area where science and metaphysics seem to meet and merge. In Seth Speaks, he describes the multidimensional nature of the human personality, with its untapped resources, its range in time and space, its connections with all aspects of the universe, how it functions in parallel universes, and the continuity of consciousness.
---------------
Parallel Universes is a 2001 documentary produced by the BBC's Horizon series. The documentary has to do with parallel universes, string theory, M theory, supergravity, and other theoretical physics concepts. Participants include Michio Kaku, Paul Steinhardt, and other physicists.
Einstein and the Mind of God. 'American Public Resource' site with an abundance of information about Albert Einstein's views of science and religion. Includes two well produced, and downloadable, MP3s, pdf file, complete transcrips of the recorded sessions, recordings of Einstien, Freeman Dyson and Paul Davies, all theoretical physicists.
Ms. Tippett: Let's talk about the way Einstein used the word "God." And even, I mean, he did seem to make frequent references to the Lord. And he had also said that what drove him all his life, what drove him as a scientist, was understanding if God had to make the world this way.
Mr. Freeman Dyson: Yes. Well, certainly it was not the kind of personal God that many people believe in. And he said that very explicitly, that he did not believe in a personal God who was interested in human affairs. He did believe in nature as some sort of universal spirit, or I suppose you might say world soul, or some kind of universal mind which ruled the universe and which was far beyond our comprehension. That's what he called "God".....
"A universal spirit ... which is beyond our comprehension." Nice concept which neatly axes nearly all of humanity's religious concepts, and certainly reflects my own personal view.
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine" is a favorite quote from J. B. S. Haldane, in 'Possible Worlds and Other Papers'.
Einstein:
"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead. A snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery, even if mixed with fear, that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty. It is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude. In this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. Enough for me, the mystery of the eternity of life and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."
"Over the past couple of months, I seem to have conducted a public experiment in the manufacture of philosophical and scientific ideas. In February, I spoke at the 2010 TED conference, where I briefly argued that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science. Normally, when one speaks at a conference the resulting feedback amounts to a few conversations in the lobby during a coffee break. I had these conversations at TED, of course, and they were useful. As luck would have it, however, my talk was broadcast on the internet just as I was finishing a book on the relationship between science and human values, and this produced a blizzard of criticism at a moment when criticism could actually do me some good. I made a few efforts to direct and focus this feedback, and the result has been that for the last few weeks I have had literally thousands of people commenting upon my work, more or less in real time. I can't say that the experience has been entirely pleasant, but there is no question that it has been useful.
If nothing else, the response to my TED talk proves that many smart people believe that something in the last few centuries of intellectual progress prevents us from making cross-cultural moral judgments--or moral judgments at all. Thousands of highly educated men and women have now written to inform me that morality is a myth, that statements about human values are without truth conditions and, therefore, nonsensical, and that concepts like "well-being" and "misery" are so poorly defined, or so susceptible to personal whim and cultural influence, that it is impossible to know anything about them. Many people also claim that a scientific foundation for morality would serve no purpose, because we can combat human evil while knowing that our notions of "good" and "evil" are unwarranted. It is always amusing when these same people then hesitate to condemn specific instances of patently abominable behavior. I don't think one has fully enjoyed the life of the mind until one has seen a celebrated scholar defend the "contextual" legitimacy of the burqa, or a practice like female genital excision, a mere thirty seconds after announcing that his moral relativism does nothing to diminish his commitment to making the world a better place. Given my experience as a critic of religion, I must say that it has been disconcerting to see the caricature of the over-educated, atheistic moral nihilist regularly appearing in my inbox and on the blogs. I sincerely hope that people like Rick Warren have not been paying attention.
...Carroll and Myers both believe nothing much turns on whether we find a universal foundation for morality. I disagree. Granted, the practical effects cannot be our reason for linking morality and science--we have to form our beliefs about reality based on what we think is actually true. But the consequences of moral relativism have been disastrous. And science's failure to address the most important questions in human life has made it seem like little more than an incubator for technology. It has also given faith-based religion--that great engine of ignorance and bigotry--a nearly uncontested claim to being the only source of moral wisdom. This has been bad for everyone. What is more, it has been unnecessary--because we can speak about the well-being of conscious creatures rationally, and in the context of science. I think it is time we tried. . . . . . "
Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions [Ted Talks]
"Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life."
"The "Face-Off" is a recurring ABC series where opposing sides debate hot topics. In the sixth installment of the series, Deepak Chopra, a physician and best-selling author of "How to Know God," and prominent scholar, philosopher and writer Jean Houston, will face-off against Michael Shermer, founding publisher of "Skeptic" magazine, and Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" on the tension between God and science."
ABC's Dan Harris does an excellent job of moderating the stimulating Does God Have A Future?, which was held at Pasadena's Caltech. Videos of the entire discussion are available on the ABC site.
Here’s how ABC News describes their different approaches: “Chopra and Houston contend the universe is proof that there is intelligence at the heart of creation and that a person needs to look beyond what can be seen and touched while Shermer and Harris advocate that science and biology can explain what is happening to people when they pray, meditate and believe in God and that evolution can explain why our beliefs developed.”
All four of the panelists were in agreement that the currently accepted notions of the 'supreme being' by the world's religions needs to be examined.
Chopra said science alone cannot explain the universe, and that new developments in science support the existence of an all-powerful deity. "We are here to upgrade science so we can look at a deeper level of reality," he said. Although science is useful for describing the rules that govern the physical world, Chopra said, science alone cannot sufficiently explain all that exists. "Science gave us the Big Bang Theory", Chopra said, but cannot explain what led to it. Chopra added that new scientific revelations, such as quantum mechanics, support the existence of an organizing principal, while Shermer contended that they do not.
