Tipping Sacred Cows

Prevolution, Part Two

  P.M.H. Atwater responded to my last blog with some great information, and she graciously allowed me to share that here:

“I read what you wrote. The physical changes are actually made-to-order for a high tech society. Yes, experiencers sabotage electronics, but they can also accelerate electronics. Case in point, when I once worked for an interconnect telephone company before the divestiture of Ma Bell. I knew absolutely nothing about computerized switching systems, but I could figure them out, flow with them, quicker, faster, better than the engineers. They finally used me as a trouble shooter on difficult installations. I could join or merge with the system, investigate it from the inside as well as the outside, check out hotel or business connections from within the circuitry, return to my body, write my report - I was always right and by doing this I saved the company a lot of time and money.
  “Freaked out my boss, though.”

  I absolutely love this! One of the things I like to do is think out loud, and ask a lot of questions. That's one of the things that's really fun about the comic strip. I can explore things from a lot of different points of view. That's one of the purposes of the strip. To get people to think and to question.
  Well, what if it's this way? Or maybe it's this other way instead? And, like the famous line in Alice in Wonderland, I can believe several different things before lunch. Oh, I know I've misquoted the line, but I wanted to give Lewis Carrol credit for the thought, anyway...
  It's true, though, that I can believe seemingly contradictory things at the same time. I didn't used to be able to. One of the things that made me such a great proponent of my old religious beliefs was that I was well trained in a thoroughly legalistic mindset. If this is true, then logically that can't be true. Wonderful fundamentalist thinking.
  Now, that's left brain, rational, and scientific. Which is great for certain things, but I've found increasingly that the things that really interest me can't be approached with that mindset. Things of the Spirit have to be approached with the understanding that any understanding we do have is necessarily analogical thinking, which is necessarily incomplete.
  Matters of Spirit can't be adequately understood with the linear thinking that serves us so well in other contexts. It's not either/or, it's both/and.
  So maybe we are evolving into a more technologically adapted species than I had thought. That might be good news, anyway. I don't like to be a doomsayer, but I just don't see any way short of a scenario of some kind of doom that will get us past the crisis of survival on this planet that we're facing as a species.
  I said might be good news. I just don''t see how anything other than a primitive, indigenous type civilization can sustain itself over the long run. As in thousands and hundreds of thousands of years long run.
  But then that's just me.
  Today.
  I might believe a couple of other things between now and breakfast tomorrow.

Prevolution: Evolution in Advance

  I'm reading P.M.H. Atwater's book, The Idiot's Guide to Near-Death Experiences. Atwater, one of the original near-death researchers, was discussing some of the characteristics of those who have had near-death-experiences, or NDE's.

  Interestingly, besides the psychological and emotional changes one might expect, there are physical changes as well. Atwater describes the NDE as "one of nature's most accelerated growth events, a powerful and complex dynamic that can not only foster psychological changes, but cause physiological mutations the equal of species evolution." (italics mine - SpiritPainter)

That last phrase almost jolted me out of my chair.

  Let me quote Atwater's lists of the major psychological and physiological changes that the majority, though not all, NDE experiencers tend to display:

  Psychological:

  "Loss of the fear of death, more spiritual, less religious, abstract easily, philosophical, can go through bouts of depression, disregard for time, more generous and charitable, form expansive concepts of love while at the same time challenged to initiate and maintain satisfying relationships, 'inner child' issues exaggerated, less competitive, convinced of a life purpose, rejection of previous limitations and norms, heightened sensations of taste-touch-texture-smell, increased psychic ability and future memory episodes, charismatic, childlike sense of wonder and joy, less stressed, more detached and objective (dissociation), 'merge' easily (absorption), hunger for knowledge and learning."

  Physiological:

  "Changes in thought-processing (switch from sequential/selective thinking to clustered thinking and an acceptance of ambiguity), insatiable curiosity, heightened intelligence, more creative and inventive, unusual sensitivity to light and sound, substantially more or less energy (even energy surges, often more sexual), reversal of body clock, lower blood pressure, accelerated metabolic and substance absorption rates (decreased tolerance of pharmaceuticals and chemically treated products), electrical sensitivity, synesthesia (multiple sensing), increased allergies or sensitivities, a preference for less meat and more vegetables and grains, physically younger looking (before and after photos can differ)."

  And here are a few especially interesting items:

  Interference with electric and electronic equipment leading to malfunctions, breakage, and other unusual reactions. People report "microphones that 'fought' them, recorders that began to 'smoke,' computers that 'crashed,' television channels that 'flipped,' electronic memory systems that 'wiped out,' or street lights that 'popped' as they walked by." Often they "could not wear watches anymore without constantly replacing them."

  A high incidence of psychic phenomona, including healing gifts.

  An increased sensitivity to meteorological changes and phenomena.

  Changing from an angry, uptight person, to someone who loves people utterly without judgment.

  Now let's start with this assumtion: suppose most of these changes are actually, in fact, the beginnings of species evolution. And suppose that evolution may not always occur in response to changes in the environment, but may in fact begin in preparation for changes in the environment?

  In other words, prevolution.

  With that in mind, look over that list again. How many of the changes on that list are absolutely, totally, absurdly, incompatible with a high-tech electronic society? How many of those changes look like they're tailor-made for a low-tech (read: aboriginal) society? How many of those traits would be valuable in the event of a vastly reduced population, surviving with no - zero - technology as we have become accustomed to it, in a fouled environment?

  And keeping in mind that these might be prevolutionary changes, look at that list harder, and think. What circumstances would make each trait valuable? What would have to happen between now and whatever then we might be looking forward to, in the environment, in civilization and in society, in order for each of those traits to become valuable? How might we have gotten from here to there, and how would having this trait not only help in survival, but also help prevent that occurrence from happening again? Don't be too quick to dismiss anything.

  Think.

  Think hard.

  We're on the threshold.

The Politics of Fear

  Somewhere in the neighborhood of last week, the negative political advertising began out our way.

  That's kind of what I used to do when I was a political cartoonist. Always tearing down, rarely building up.

  And people will talk about how awful negative campaign advertising is, and how it's so degrading, and how they wish all that mudslinging would just stop, but it doesn't, and it won't likely do so any time soon.

  Why? Two words:

  It works.

  At least in the short run. And politics seems to be pretty much about the short run. So if nobody can stand the darn stuff, why does it work?

  Religious organizations figured that one out a long time ago: fear. Fear works really well in the short run. And if you can keep people fearful, it works pretty well in the long run, too. To a point.

  You see, it taps into one of our primal instincts: survival. After all, we need to know if there's a hungry beast prowling the nearby woods for our family, or if the tyrant over the next hill is going to attack. So fear serves a necessary purpose. Plus, all that adrenaline pumping through our system can be addictive, so we're always looking for the next thing to fear. It's a powerful, cheap drug.

  Don't believe me? Ask a news editor. Bad news equals fear, equals ratings, equals sales. Equals cash. News editors know how to drive their market, just like any pusher.

  I said it works to a point. The news media have it easiest. They have a constantly changing array of targets, so they don't usually come off as the bad guys, unless they stay on someone after the public's blood frenzy has passed. So they can be the good guys, the guards on the tower, the equal opportunity Paul Reveres.

  But the politicians and the religious bunch don't have it so easy. There's always just their side, then there's the other guys. So attacks might be viewed as self-serving. And mean. And everybody knows, mean people suck.

  The bottom line is a wonderfully objective measure of truth. The reason you don't see very many attack ads for products, is that it's no way to win brand loyalty. It might get you somewhere in the short run, but you pay a price and you'd better get off it fast. Almost all advertising is spent on telling you how good a company's product is, not how horrible the other guy's product is.

  Of course, it's easy to tear down. It's much harder to offer a more excellent choice. If you demonize the other folks, you just have to be a little less of a devil to be the best choice available.

  But you pay in brand loyalty, remember? And in politics that means number of eligible voters who actually went to the polls. Which these days, is not many. Not a big surprise, is it?

  Not only is it easy to tear down, we've been taught that God apparently favors this tactic as well.

  Sure He does.

  Well, why else would the other religion be always portrayed as of the devil? Why does anything different than our own form of worship, belief, or ethics get preached, taught, and warned against?

  Fear works pretty well for a while, but eventually, the voters stay away from the polls, and the faithful fall away. Because they're not really flocking to, they're running away. And when there's nothing left to run away from, or they realize they've been running from a lie, a made-up threat, your customer loyalty takes a big hit.

  Look at the empty polling places.

  The deserted churches and empty pews.

  Think there might be a better way? Think the corporations might have got at least one thing right?

  Now there's a scary thought.

Massachussetts: Health Insurance For All

  It's a good first step.

  No, I haven't seen details of the plan, just an overview, but it's still a good first step, because health care is something that the government simply has to provide. In an era when few people can afford unsubsidized health care, and many can afford none at all, this falls under the category of those services the government must be responsible for.

  Just like any other part of the infrastructure.

  It is outrageous that there are millions who are sick and dying simply because they can't afford basic care. I'm not going into a litany of the facts, they're pretty well known. And those of us who consider ourselves spiritual people need to applaud the efforts Massachussetts is making, whether they go far enough or not, simply because they are steps in the right direction.

  Go Massachussetts!

  How can you say you love your brother or sister if you have the means to relieve their suffering but do not?

Science: Healing Prayer Doesn't Work!

"Praying Doesn't Help the Sick Get Better"

"Study on Power of Prayer Finds it Actually May do You More Harm"

"If You Want to Get Better - Don't Say  a Little Prayer."

  And so, with seeming authority and finality these headlines, and many more like it, are being splattered worldwide.

  Really.

  Let's look at  the design of the "study," shall we, before we leap to any conclusions.

  The study is reported in The American Heart Journal. 1,800 heart bypass patients were involved in a John Templeton Foundation study costing $2.4 million. Unfortunately, the study was built on two incredibly ignorant and completely false assumptions. Basically, they set things up so that no real prayer would take place, then said "see, prayer doesn't work!"

  Here's what happened:

  Three groups of people were asked to pray for patients who were strangers to them. Those praying included two Roman Catholic groups, and a New Thought Christian group.

  The Patients were divided into three groups:

1. Patients who were told people would pray for them

2. Patients who were not told people would pray for them, but people did pray for them

3. Patients who were not told anything, and nobody prayed for them.

  One night before surgery, the patients who had people assigned to pray for them, would be "prayed" for. Then the worshippers would "pray" for them for a period of two weeks after surgery. The prayers would ask God to grant ‘a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications.' [my emphasis - SpiritPainter]

  Among two groups of patients, one having people praying for them but not knowing, and the other receiving no prayers, there was no difference in their health and recoveries. The group that was being prayed for and knew about it had more complications after surgery than the other two groups.

  (The thinking on this last result is that the patients may have been frightened and worried by the news that "you are being prayed for" assuming that there was something extraordinarily serious about their condition to require extra prayer.)

  But let's look at the "prayer" part of this, since that's what the study is all about, right? I mean the study was supposed to determine whether "prayer" was effective.

  Well, what if the "prayer" was set up in such a way that it was guaranteed to fail? Surprise, this is exactly what happened.

  Here's how. Look at the part I emphasized, above, again:

  The prayers would ask God to grant ‘a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications.'

The first problem, or false assumption this study is built on, is the instruction to request (ask God to grant). Prayer can be effective when using the importuning, or begging, mode, but this may not always be (in my experience seldom is...) the most effective form of prayer.

But far worse, and the second false assumption, is that the above formula is not a prayer, it is an incantation. An incantation is merely a formula that is read, and not a communication from/with spirit. It is like writing out the exact words that someone would say to their lover, with no deviation allowed.

  Would anyone be surprised that a lover spoken AT in this manner would not be exactly thrilled with this, and the hoped-for response would be shall we say, disappointing?

The point, of course, is that prayer is something that engages the universe and the whole person, not a verbal formula that's just recited mentally or aloud. Not to deny that the people praying were most likely sincere, but go back to my example. Even the sincere lover who is so concerned with sticking to the formula that s/he doesn't engage the reality of the other won't achieve the hoped-for results. In fact, we'd be surprised if the object of one's affection were not driven further away by this kind of robotic and idiotic behavior.

  Prayer is not a magic formula to be recited from a book of spells. But then, prayer is little understood even by those in religious organizations, so how can we expect those who operate in a materialistic worldview (scientists) to understand that you can't "design" a good prayer in the first place, so any attempt to do so is built on a false premise?

  Science is wonderful, but in order to be good science, it has to control all the variables. And of course that's what this experimental design tried to do. But study of prayer is more akin to the study of weather. The variables can't all be controlled. They can't even all be known. The best you can do is collect ever more complete data, apply it to what actually appeared to happen, and hope you can eventualy begin to discern patterns.

  You can pretend to control all the variables, then say you did it, and pronounce the results, voila!

  But that's just playing pretend.

  The sad part is, a lot of people will believe this so-called "science."

  Pray.

The Jesus Papers

The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History by Michael Baigent

  I saw the author interviewed on the Today Show this morning. Apparently he's one of the authors suing Dan Brown about the alleged Da Vinci Code copyright infringement. They also had an American Catholic priest from the Vatican to rebut his claims. Frankly, I wasn't impressed with either one.

  And while I'm on this, the authors suing Brown published a non-fiction book of research, advancing some theories based on that research. In what sense is it copyright infringement to use facts presented in a nonfiction work as the basis for a fictional work? Just my non-legal musings...

  Anyway, one of Baigent's main points is that the crucifixion was faked, not exactly a new theory. There is, of course, the intriguing statement in the Bible that Pilate was surprised that Jesus had died so soon, before the other two crucified with him, and so his legs weren't broken as were the others' to hasten death. That has always puzzled and intrigued me... On the other hand, the folks around there had seen enough real crucifixions to know the difference, I would think.

  Well, I haven't read the book and so I'm not really in a position to form an informed opinion. But if you want some really intriguing material on Jesus, authors Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy have some fascinating work, including The Jesus Mysteries and The Laughing Jesus. Both are well worth checking into. In fact, go to Timothy's website for a wealth of resources on this subject... https://www.timothyfreke.com/

Day One: and so it begins

Religion. Spirituality. What's the difference? We're going to be exploring that here. As the title of the comic strip suggests, we're not going to leave too many sacred cows standing.

I was spiritual before I was religious. Then I got religion, and it nearly killed my spirituality. Now I'm back again, stronger than ever as a spiritual person.

Being spiritual means accepting the fact that we are spiritual beings, and living in that reality. Being religious means accepting a set of rules for being spiritual. Which is like loving a pet so much you have it stuffed and mounted. It becomes a monument to something that was once alive, but no longer...

You get the idea.

So we're going to have some fun with all that. We need to grow up as a species, and get past the petty differences we're all hanging on to so desperately, and realize that we're all in this canoe together.

What do you think? Can we do this? Are you with me?