A Quiet Watercourse

One of the themes I’ve picked up from re-reading Cosmos is a small feeling for the gradual growth and refinement of our knowledge.  We’ve slowly grown in our knowledge and, while quite often what we’ve thought initially is wrong, science is a self correcting process and we’ve slowly gotten nearer to the truth.

The planets are a prime example, originally we were unable to make out any details and had some very odd ideas due to this lack of hard data.  People imagined cities and civilisations on both Venus and Mars, later observations even showed what seemed to be a network of canals on Mars.  Of course, once we were actually able to visit the planets we found that this wasn’t the case and our knowledge grew massively.  Venus is utterly inhospitable, and the Martian canal network was nowhere is sight.

Our methods are not always direct and once it’s explained how we know the things about planets we haven’t even visited, it makes more sense.  For example, we know about the composition of an object by the radio frequencies it reflects when examing with a Radio Telescope, as different elements absorb different frequencies.

This, for me, underlines the reason I walked away from religious explanations of the world; Science can not only explain that it knows, but can explain in detail how it knows.  Whereas the religious explanation is generally either an argument from authority or circular reasoning.  Furthermore, when they are wrong (and they are wrong more often than they will care to admit), they often are incapable of self correcting.  One exception to this (and there may well be others especially Taoism) is Buddhism, to quote the Dalai Lama:

“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.”

Of course, given the Buddha’s teaching on change, it really shouldn’t be a surprising thing that Buddhism can do this.

I found quite an interesting read this morning.  An article that shows scientific research that makes the point that the facts we accept are the ones that conform to our cultural conditioning, our view of the world, rather than the facts as they are.

You can find it here.

Now, this kind of thing is exactly what the Buddha was talking about.  He pointed out that the reasons we suffer are that we are unwilling to accept the world as it is and prefer our illusions about it.  Note that I don’t say “unable to accept the world as it is”, to say that would be to admit defeat before we start.

I’ve seen a few versions of climate change arguments, it’s becoming more apparent to me that this is the 21st century religious war, with vested interests on both sides and too much shouting.  I find myself agreeing with the implication that this has become more about peoples cherished worldviews and egos and less about the science.  The Buddha tells us that clinging very strongly to our views can cause trouble,  it seems that we need to be reminded of this wise advice with regard to the subject of Climate Change.

For my part, it’s my understanding that the weather is very complex feedback system which we still don’t fully understand.  We’re introducing changes into this sytem and doing the equivalent of throwing mud in the works, and have been for years.  Let’s stop there; we’re taking a very large powerful and complex system; which we don’t fully understand and messing with it in an unco-ordinated manner.

The changes that we have started in the past will have their effect, some already have (anyone remember acid rain?), some no doubt have yet to become apparent.  This comes close to my understanding of Karma; it’s all about knock on effects in a complex system, sometimes unpredictable ones, coming back to bite you.  Remember the “Butterfly Effect”, the principle that small changes could get magnified quite a lot, this could get quite eventful.

When it’s put like this, does any of this strike you as a particularly wise thing to be doing?

I’ve been getting a little further into Cosmos, and I’m reading about Johannes Kepler and his theories of the solar system.  It’s interesting to read, as we hear of these things, but never really put them in historical context.

Once again I’m left with the strong impression that the Catholic Church seems to have been responsible for the suppression of a lot of knowledge and scientific progress.  I think this is one of the things that should worry us all about the rise of so-called “Creation Science” and the resistance to the teaching of Evolution in the classroom.  Do we really want another lost millennium?  Do we really want the scientific investigation of the universe to be modulated and limited by the unverified and adulterated writings of a bunch of near stone age priests?

When Galileo said that the Earth moved around the sun, Martin Luther said:

“An upstart astrologer …. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of Astronomy.  But Sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth” [1][2]

Some years ago, someone tried to tell me that it was the other way around, that the Catholic church had said the Earth orbited the Sun and Galileo that it did not.  To this day, I still shake my head now as I think of that incident.  My response to anyone who thinks that is to read the words of the Pope John Paul II on the issue:

“Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture….”

Remember this was followed by a formal apology in 2000 for a lot of things in the Catholic Church’s history, including what happened to Galileo.
—
[1] Cosmos, Carl Sagan, page 69. ISBN 0-349-10703-3
[2] Refer to New International Version Bible.  Joshua 10: 12:13.

This has no doubt been mentioned elsewhere, but I just thought this was something I had to share.

A team of Scientists from 8 countries have sequenced the genome of a 4000 year old Eskimo, who they’re decided to call “Inuk”. They’ve learned a lot and this opens a fascinating window, allowing us to peek into the past.  Opportunities like this don’t come by every day, and I think this work does us a great service by revealing another precious fragment of our evolution as one people of the Earth.

I recently started re-reading Carl Sagan’s book “Cosmos”, I’m starting to regain the feeling I used to have of how awesome the universe is and how the story of the universe from Big Bang to the present day really is the greatest story ever told.  Years ago, Carl’s books inspired me to look deeper and begin to really question things and start to appreciate the beauty of the universe.  I’m planning to broaden my remit here at Quiet Watercourse, I plan to have some fun along the way as well.

I’ve been exploring the world of Steampunk a little recently.  On first glance, it simply looks like a form of Victorian costume play, but on closer inspection it seems to be more about an attitude; a state of mind, than how you’re dressed.

Having said that, the idea of introducing Victorian and Edwardian elements into my style is interesting and it does seem to lead to you making more of an effort.  I find myself liking pocket watches and the idea of wearing a waistcoat, I’m also finding myself leaning towards the older methods in other areas; but more on that another time.

It also seems to me that the attitude is one of building and modifying things yourself and using more durable items and technology, there is an avoidance reaction to mass branded things and a desire for the craftsmanship of a more by hand approach.  This is something I can relate to, and I do wish things were built to last and were more repairable these days.  I think those days of “mend and make do” will return as resource shortages start to bite though.

The Brass Goggles site is an excellent place to start looking and it seems that there is a lot to see, Amazon have had some business from me as I explore the fiction and also the music.

There is also a strong Steampunk presence in Secondlife, look for “New Babbage” and “Caledon”.

I’ve been watching the economics news over the last couple of weeks of writers’ block with a sinking feeling.

Nobody mentions the Elephant in the room, the end of Oil and the limits to growth.  There just seems to be a vague feeling of ‘oh, somebody must do something’, but no sense that business as usual is not possible long term and that certain limits are approaching.

I have spoken to people who see the end of oil, it makes me wonder that if those of us on the ground can see it with a simple common sense, why can’t those in charge?  The technology is there, but maybe because it’s not shiny and new; some kind of shiny impersonal Ithing with no soul, nobody wants to know.

One of the things that made me smile in all this cold weather was the story of a modern diesel locomotive rescued by a steam engine in England.  I’ve been of the opinion for quite some time that newer ways aren’t always better, reading Robert M Pirsig’s view in Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that the correct question is not “what is new?” but “what is best?” confirmed my beliefs.

I’ve seen folks arguing that the renewable technologies need huge factories and lots of energy to build and all sorts of things, but windmills and water wheels have been around for centuries, they’re and ancient and time honoured technology and can provide a valuable contribution without all the rare elements and industrial wizardry, what is so hard to understand about that.

Or maybe we’re in denial because it’s not shiny and doesn’t fit our self image?

I’d just like to start by wishing everyone reading this a happy Christmas and a great New Year.

Well, I’ve had another time of being distracted and quiet it seems, I’m hoping to return to a regular posting sachedule in the new year.

I was keeping an eye on the IT news the other day, I saw an interesting article about the way we are being forced into conformity by the corporations we work for.   The author mentioned a recent case, where a person who is very passionate about climate change was allegedly sacked because he disagreed with his company on the matter, his company disagree and all this is pending the attentions of the legal system, so it is all rather up in the air at the minute but does make interesting food for speculation.

The author of the article pointed out that, through “Codes of Conduct” and other methods, various organisations can work to exclude people whose views and lifestyles are not the strict majority norm.  A couple of examples he gives are a teacher who got into considerable difficulty for being a pagan and another teacher who posed topless a few years before being a teacher getting into trouble for that.

It’s a question I’ve pondered before with regard to the rows about Anglican clergy, for example, why should a priest’s gender matter?  What matters more is their ability to do the job, though fundamentalists would without a doubt disagree with me, as is their right. So when looking at teaching (which did seem to get singled out a little more in the article), surely what matters is that we have a good teacher, someone who can get the lessons across?  Who gives a damn if they’re pagan?  If you can do the job, the standard of the work’s good and you keep your professional life reasonably seperate from your personal life where’s the problem?  That question, forces us to confront our prejudices and frankly it’s needed.

All of this raises questions about how far employers should be allowed to go in these dictates, at what point do we turn and say “That’s none of your business”? Human Rights legislation is improving in this area in Europe, but it does seem to me as though in some instances employers are (without realising, I hope) working to undermine the human rights of their employees. This is a trend we need to fight and I notice Britain is very slow on the uptake (we have opt outs) with human rights and employment laws.  It is to be hoped we come to our senses.

Quite some time ago (in 2006 in fact), I commented on the difference between Spirituality and Religion.  Over time I’ve stuck to my guns, that they are NOT the same thing, and I’ve seen a few comments around the place that have made me want to revisit this old territory for a quick post.

I like to define Spirituality as a sense of that which is common between us, regardless of Religion; that we are not islands in the world and that we are not separate from, but intertwined with the world around us.  It provides a sense of the sacred in the world, that some things go beyond our materialism, and that we should look beyond the daily grind and the “rat race”.

Some of what I just said can be said of what it though of as Religion.  I think that Religion is a set of rites, rituals and customs that sit on top of Spirituality, that provide more of a framework and structure.  To a degree this is needed, I don’t argue that point, but it is not a good thing it it should grow to stifle things.

The comment that spurred me to write this was that if you have Spirituality without Religion you just have a vague feeling of goodwill, in my view, that isn’t accurate and is quite derisive.  I’ve come to realise more and more over time that there’s a lot more to a simple Spirituality then a vague feeling of good will, it seems to be a much more intuitive thing and it also seems more feminine to my sense of it.  As any Taoist or Zen Buddhist will tell you there is a thing that can be dimly sensed that is beyond being articulated in words, that can only be glimpsed intuitively and can’t be grasped by reason as is the case with the scriptures of a by the book religion.  Further to this, you must do the glimpsing yourself, a priest cannot do the work for you, you must work to your own salvation!

To try to bind it in scriptures is (as Alan Watts so brilliantly said) to walk into the restaurant and eat the menu instead of the meal.  My own conclusion that has been spurred by the comment I read, is that Spirituality without religion is quite valid if difficult to grasp and also not so easy to fit into neat categories with names.  It can live without overt Religiousness quite happily.   Religion without Spirituality on the other hand is doomed from the outset.  It would seem to me to be a set of scriptures and rules and rituals that have had the original point somehow lost along the way, if this is the case, then is religion without spirituality a hollow soulless shell?

I’ve been taking notice of the feedback I’ve received on the online version of my meditation timer. I’d like to thank everyone who’s given me feedback and I’ve made a few changes to it.

This is what I’ve changed:

• Added details to instructions to clarify what to expect when running the timer.
• Changed wording and meta tags to use the phrase online timer.
• changed header when inside the timer to be a lot smaller, this should be better for smaller screens.
• Added a changelog that incorporates the pre-existing desktop changelog.

You can find my online medition timer here.