Sunday, July 23, 2006

No Imagination by Louis Evan Palmer


Imagination is always presented as something that essentially comes out of nothing. There is a time before our imagination when the result of our imagination doesn't exist and then this new thought, idea, feeling exists.

But what change would be wrought on the universe if, in fact, there was no such thing as imagination? What if every single thing we conceive is based on perceptions or remembrances, however faulty, of other realities, or reflect components of this reality that usually are hidden.

What if the First Law of Thermodynamics applies to all non-physical forms and energies - nothing is created or destroyed, it is merely transformed. In this context, imagination cannot create anything new and the transformation consists of perceiving, evaluating, remembering and judging.

Therefore, we might think that ancient peoples do not talk in metaphors, or "imagine" anything, but rather try to describe phenomena that are beyond their understanding. Spaceships, alien lifeforms, collisions with space objects - all events, all described by them in language that might be interpreted thousands of years later through the prism of several translations and worldview transformations as myths or leaps of imagination.

Imagination could never, in any case, be completely new or we wouldn't understand it or even recognize it. Yet, if it is all there already and one is seeing an existant object or possibility for the first time, although it might appear that the perceiver is creating something via imagination, maybe instead they're discerning something.

It might seem like a word game at this point, imagination is now defined as creative, or superior, discernment. But the key idea is that nothing new is being brought forth, it is an uncloaking, or a clearing away, that allows one to discern this thing and speak about it. If so, then imagination becomes concerned with transformations of existing orders, the solidification of ephemeral mental darts and dashes, and the shaping of the potential for good and bad.

It might be reformulated as "discernment shaped by intent" - which then makes it our duty to have the best possible "intent" so that our power, which ultimately is all power, is directed towards truth and not towards illusion.

No imagination, no excuses.

Louis Evan Palmer, No Imagination, The Way It Can Be,
Copyright Louis Evan Palmer


One Substance, Many Appearances by Louis Evan Palmer

it ...?

I'm convinced that the search for a single explanation for the universe, be it a unified field theory or super strings or branes, reflects a deeper, almost unconscious, knowledge on our part. And that knowledge is that there is one underlying substance out of which everything is made.

In the tradition of the ancient Greeks, we must ask: "How can anyone or anything create something that is different from itself, from the substance it has available to use?"

We can argue that whatever is created must perforce be less than what created it? It is something that is hived off from the source. It is something that is appears the way it is due to a limitation on the perceiver, on the perception of it.

We can then find ourselves directed to how the encumberance is constructed and how might it constitute a new "substance".

Awareness of any kind including perceiving and remembering must be part of the creator and therefore part of the creation. This would extend to every single object including stones and stars and "space". However, this also opens the question as to where does one thing begin and end versus any other "thing"?

Some have said that each and every thing is "god" experiencing different modes of being and exulting in them.

And where does "free will" and "choice" fit in with this act of creation? How is that ability to decide created? Since the creator has it and each of the creations is a part of the creator then each creation must have it. But why? Why does "god" feel this impulse to create? And, why does "god" put limitations on his creations which seem to generate the enormous suffering that we see and feel around us?

Or so it seems..

Maybe it's better to go back the first assertion - we are made of "god". Does the substance of "god" have extent or limitation? - No!

Therefore, any other conclusion is wrong and now our task is to figure out why.

Copyright Louis Evan Palmer
One Substance, Many Appearances, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be,


Saturday, July 15, 2006

Guiding Principles by Louis Evan Palmer


BE - You come into existence, you don't know how, you don't remember; you try to understand, you act (and inaction IS an action).

At certain points, you seek an explicit statement from yourself or from someone as to what it is exactly that guides you and informs your decisions. Of course, this has been going on the whole time but behind the scenes, under the horizon, unbeknowest to your conscious self - which seems to be the bulk of your "knowing" anyway.

KNOW - Principle One emerges as "Know" - "Know Thyself", "Know Life", "Know Everything". This encompasses going into how you came to be a "knowing" being in the first place. You hope to find the step-by-step progression in "knowing-ness" if it exists.

DO - Principle Two emerges as "Do Good" which includes not doing "not Good" and, in fact, will surely lead to actively avoiding evil, its enablers, its environs, and its precursors. "Know" is part of "Do Good" but precedes it because that knowledge or Wisdom is required to know that Good is a correct goal and what Good might be and what not-Good might be.

"Do Good" also includes thinking and constantly re-thinking in every possible way (including non-thinking thinking like some forms of meditation or mindfulness) about the constituents of Good, its precursors, its characteristics; explorations into what makes Good expand; what makes Good endure; what makes Good "good".

All this feeding into the idea that our consciousness is the small light that shines into a vast ocean of knowing and while we think we know only that illuminated section, we actually know more - if only we could remember and by remembering "know" even as we feel that the best knowing is that which does not remember and cannot be remembered but can be experienced.


Copyright Louis Evan Palmer
Guiding Principles, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer,


Saturday, July 08, 2006

A Surfeit of Jurisdictions by Louis Evan Palmer


When do the layers of organizations become dysfunctional? Is it partly a result of perceptions? Is there an optimal number and mix of jurisdictions?

Discussions of jurisdictions quickly become esoteric. Theories across many disciplines emerge - economic, psychologic, management. Implicit are philosophies and cultures and beliefs.

We have political governance - for many, this occurs at the city or town level, then at a county or regional level, then at a state or province level, then at a national level then at an international or supranational level.

We have various specialized oversight - for medicine, for standards, for food and health, for public hygiene. We have a body that jointly manages an international waterway, the St. Laurence seaway. Bodies that operate and manage airports or ports or bridges.

We have religious and spiritual organizations which themselves operate at different levels - within their denomination, across denominations within the same faith, acoss other faiths, within countries, within political systems.

We have bodies for every kind of sport and cultural activity. We have specific bodies for special events like the Olympics or the the World Cup.

Some of the jurisdictions apply to everyone, while others only to members. Some people are very conscious of these numerous jurisdictions while others are almost completely unaware.

Of course, this does not touch on secret organizations and jurisdictions. They affect their members but they can also affect non-members.

Because we prize organizations and the power they can bestow, we have a built-in drive towards every possible type of organization which will then lay claim to jurisdiction in various areas.

It can be in fashion, in art, in music; or more specifically, in women's fashion, in abstract art, in jazz music.

The voluntary self-organizing organizations are the natural outcome of a democratic society and their jurisdictions can be fleeting and dynamic.

Military jurisdictions loom over and behind all. And, intelligence agencies and special bureaus.

Having a great number of jurisdictions and organizations fighting over them and creating new ones may not be the height of the civil society. Turning it over to private organizations is merely pretending that the need doesn't exist or that it can be better managed out-of-sight.

Where is the in-depth study of how a democracy is best organized? Not the very many pieceworks that we seem to fund and ignore all the time but serious fundamental ongoing research on how best to organize a society.

It's bad enough to have a glut of rules and rule-makers and rule-enforcers but it's worse to not know what we've got, what we need to operate optimally and, perhaps most urgently, why we need to expose and extirpate all hidden agents, levers and forces. No secret groups, courts, jails, laws, regulations, orders.

Adaptability is only useful if it prunes as well as grows. We can't keep adding and not removing. But we don't want hidden agendas being implemented in the guise of efficiencies. So we need maximum openess. Monolithicism is to be avoided but so too is undue multiplicity.

It's time to go back to the basics - definitions, purposes, plans.

Copyright Louis Evan Palmer
A Surfeit of Jurisdictions, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be,


Monday, July 03, 2006

Lower the Voting Age by Louis Evan Palmer

A simple,
fair, fast way to
make things

At different points in time, even today in some cases, you couldn't (or can't) vote if you were not a land owner; if you were a slave; if you were coloured; if you were an Indian;
if you were a Woman; if you are/were a prisoner; if you weren't 25 or older; 21 or older; 18 or older. Etc. Etc.

Some of the voting restrictions strike modern citizens as being unbelieveable and yet, they each had their proponents who sallied forth with their fusty logic with the sterness and pomposity of olden day flat-earth advocates or the learned men of medieval times who elaborated on how the four elements interacted for a number of common phenomenon like a pile of logs burning.

One effort towards more equity in the voting process is a movement, varying in strength, in several countries like the USA and Canada, which is trying to get the voting age lowered to 16 years of age.

Reasons abound but a list put out by one of the groups listed the following top reasons for granting 16 year olds the right to vote.
  • Youth have adult responsibilities but not rights
  • Youth pay taxes and live under the law and therefore, should have the vote
  • Politicians will represent youth when youth can vote
  • Youth have a unique perspective
  • 16 is a better age to introduce voting than 18 as they're more stationary
  • Youth will vote well
  • Lowering the voting age will provide an intrinsic benefit to the lives of youth
  • There are no wrong votes
      This appears to be obvious and yet, lowering the voting age isn't on anyone's agenda. The only agenda for youth is aimed at trying them as adults in court, put them into strict supervision jails, enticing them to join the armed forces so they can be betrayed into fighting in illegal wars, etc. etc.

      Anyone who can speak and think sufficiently to understand the issues should be entitled to vote. The movement is talking 16 but really where is that line? 15? 12? It remains to be determined by people who aren't biased or afraid. However, 16 is an excellent first step.

      Having youth involved in voting will invigorate and elevate the voting process. Issues will have to be simplified and explained to their satisafaction. The obfuscation and lying and appeals to base emotions will be exposed and rejected by today's youth.

      If any persons, and it's not been apparent in any of the too few discussions on this issue to date, are afraid of subjecting youth to propaganda, they should know that they already subjected to it but with no recourse and no call to critical thought. Having the vote would give a powerful impetus towards that and could save our societies before the sociopaths in power put it out of reach for a very long time.

      Copyright Louis Evan Palmer
      Lower the Voting Age, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be,


      Mongols by Louis Evan Palmer

      The Face

      Might wins battles & wars. It has no connection as to whether the aftermath is better than what preceded it.

      By almost every measure, the Mongol invasions were a catastophe. All the subjected cities and nations went back in time and capability. One can look at a map at countries that even now are considered backwards and see the blood-soaked imprint of the hordes.

      Russia, the former Soviet republics, China, Korea, the Middle East, the Near East - all devastated by the lethal, fast-moving horsemen from cold Far Eastern plateaus and mountains. Baghdad destroyed. Herat destroyed. Europe only saved by the timely deaths of Jinghis, the Great Khan and then later, his son Batu.

      Perhaps it's unfair to castigate the Mongols for using what turned out to be an unstoppable military force. After all, what nations could restrain themselves from using such an advantage - irresistible power. Even today when we've supposedly progressed.

      And the Mongols, while primitive in their cultural customs & aspirations, were very advanced in their military prowess. They had total mobility in the context of the world at that time - two of their small tough horses per soldier, powerful bows and arrows that could be delivered accurately from galloping horses, the latest in seige equipment and techniques appropriated from conquered armies. They could advance at a terrifyingly fast pace, if needed on a 24 hour basis - switching horses as required, sleeping & eating while astride.

      It would be difficult to find a positive contribution made by the Mongols in any of their conquered territories. They took prodigously, in many cases for hundreds of years, but aside from the sterile peace of a cowed populace gave nothing back except death, fear and sorrow.

      The Mongols were good at one thing - making war - and that pestilent excellence gave them dominion. And that starkly highlights our eternal vexing problem - how to prepare for war, to stop noxious Mongol-like invaders and their ilk, and yet, not to turn into pale imitations of that which we fear.

      To be clear, the advocated study & preparation does not refer to specious contrivances like "al-Qaeda" and the nebulous "war on terror". This refers to the real thing from wherever it comes.

      Even today, at this very minute, there are Mongols venerating the image & spirit of Jinghis.

      Copyright Louis Evan Palmer
      Mongols, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be,


      Sunday, July 02, 2006

      1st Hint - You might be in a Holographic Universe if ... by Louis Evan Palmer

      are the first
      clues pointing
      to a mind-boogling

      Various spiritual masters, especially of the Buddhist persuasion, have stated
      words to the effect that what we think, perceive & feel is an illusion. That the world we live in is "maya".

      This is usually interpreted as "it's like an illusion" or "it's real but not what we think" or "it's somewhat illusory".

      But what if it is exactly as it's stated - an illusion from start to finish. Something that's been contrived by a vast array of entities including oneself.

      One astounding version of this "maya" has come to us in the last half-century
      from illusion-cutting-edge science and it's most often referred to as the "holographic universe" proposition.

      In some guises, it involves itself with string theory or membrane theory (also called "branes") and with the multiverse theory and with Bohm's dissertations on Order - implicate, superimplicate and explicate.

      One way to tackle this type of proposition is to take it as true and ask what clues might you expect to see that are revelatory.

      1st Hint - entangled pairs... this is the experimental confirmation of the theoretical assertion that pairs of elementary particles that have become
      "entangled" exhibit behaviour that indicates they have communicated instantaneously regardless of the distance separating them. In a holographic universe, this type of information would be available throughout its domain.

      More to follow...

      Copyright Louis Evan Palmer
      1st Hint - You might be in a Holographic Universe if, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be,