Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Do the 1% want Trump?

Posted: 13/01/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, Science
Tags: , ,


Again I have enjoyed the clarity of a Black Agenda Report article, as far as I know (being British and living far away in Thailand) this gives a clear analysis of Democrats, neoliberalism and the need for change.

However there was one statement that jumped out at me:-

“The ruling class desperately want to replace Trump for fear that his rise to the Oval Office marks the beginning of the end of the two-party arrangement in Washington.”

Initially I felt the 1% were not supporting Trump during his campaign for presidency. Once nominated he became Republican and not Trump so the 1% supported him begrudgingly. Once he got in I think they were jittery. The 1%-profits come from their manipulation of trade, his deplorable approach might have had impact on the way business is conducted. I now feel the 1% are behind Trump because he is delivering more profits – increasing wars-for-profits for example. For the 1% racism is just a tool for promoting division and thus ensuring the continuation of profits. It seems to me that Trump policies don’t matter to the 1%, his rhetoric increases antagonism between deplorables and liberals, and the 1% can exploit that situation.

That antagonism is symbolised in the two-party system of neoliberalism, and that arrangement is something that the 1% control and can exploit. I agree with that. And the “better the system they know” might apply to this 1%-control. But the 1% did not invent the two-party neoliberal parlour game, historically one party has always grown out of struggle and then with 1%-backing taken over by opportunists and become part of the 2-party neoliberalism and under 1%-control.

What if Trump-fascism does end 2-party neoliberalism? How would this impact on the 1%-profits? I don’t know but I think fascism would enable total control of the profit-making. Over his presidency I think I have perceived an increasing alignment between Trump and the 1% – how would I know? Trump is an excellent vehicle for the 1%. He is obnoxious, hated by the majority, and a complete maverick. The 1% however appear to keep their distance. If he loses, he can be ditched by the 1%, blamed for being in collusion with the Russians, blamed for being a racist, and blamed for being crazy. If Trump became too oppressive it would be so easy for the 1% to finance a new liberalism, and recreate the two-party neoliberalism that functions so well for them at the moment.

Trump is a perfect 1%-scapegoat, and I think they will milk him for as long as possible so long as they benefit.

Of course with a Trump-extreme world the 1% might become divided??

<– Previous Post “Oriental” Next Post –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Advertisements

Truth?

Posted: 06/01/2018 by zandtao in Insight, ONE planet, Science, Struggle, War

Since my early retirement I have enjoyed learning from the internet. I got sucked into conspiracies and subscribed to what I assumed were left-wing newsletters that kept me informed. It is only with examining the rise of Trump that I have determined that many of these are right-wing intellectuals. This is understandable as I see their funding as being a knock-on effect of the 1%-manipulations.

However whilst I describe this right-wing intellectualism, it does not mean that this information is untrue – far from it. I consider these intellectuals the right-wing periphery, and have no wish to dissociate from them. Of course that does not mean I have any right-leanings.

For me the issue lies with the answer to this question, how do we overcome the 1%? And the answer for me is very clearly Collective Unity, and struggling as the United 99% against the 1%. It is never clear to me how the individualism of these good right-wing intellectuals will overcome something as powerful as the 1%. In my view they need to overcome their abhorrence of the liberals, an abhorrence I also feel, and somehow find a way of working in Unity against the 1%.

Government and taxation is of course very divisive. When I look at the neoliberal governments of Blair and Obama I understand why these intellectuals are against taxation and government. As a teacher I incline to defend the educational aspect of governance, but I know that the caring aspects are only a subterfuge for the main current purpose of taxation – accumulation of wealth to the 1% through taxation for defence spending on the wars-for-profit.

There needs to be some form of commitment to Unity, and I don’t see these right-wing intellectuals wanting that; I must just accept the bonus of knowledge that the right-wing periphery funding provides. The egos that comes with individualism anywhere on the political spectrum has also to be recognised and defeated, ego is a major divisive factor.

I am old enough for truth to be easy, proletarian struggle. Occupy reinforced that with its simple 1% clarity. But these understandings are interspersed throughout a steady campaign of confusion. Politically for me this has shown itself clearly recently with the identification of the left with liberalism, when I think that people might identify my position with neoliberalism, its wars-for-profits and wage-slavery I shudder. But the clarity of my truth has to be tempered by the obvious failure of the genuine left to unite and be meaningful, hence the ease with which we have been labelled with the liberals.

This blog on truth was sparked by watching this video called “The Republic of Science” from Judith Curry, I absolutely do not recommend this video. In Mandtao I examine science – I am posting this in my main blog Zandtao as well. As a Buddhist I am firmly committed to 100% enquiry (4 Agreements as well). Science needs questioning because science is establishment. Now saying science is establishment for me means that science is controlled by the 1%, and when you listen to Judith she talks of the way science is controlled. She makes a very convincing case, that creative scientists (who she calls mavericks) are restricted by the science establishment and government direction. This is excellent, Mandtao would appear to say the same thing but the reality is the exact opposite.

Judith Curry is on the periphery of the Koch brothers campaign for climate denial. I suspect, although I don’t know, that whatever funding she gets stems from the vast amounts the Koch brothers have used to dominate the internet. So-called independent media. I have no interest in her climate denial evaluation – she might have a genuine position; she does not appear to be a direct definitive climate denier. What concerns me is that her analysis of science is so close to the truth that it is so easy to fall for her line.

The problem is she does not see the source of the problem as the 1%. She talks mostly of the science establishment stifling mavericks, who can argue with that? Her position is then that the establishment is stifling the maverick who talks of climate denial. This is so plausible but oh so dangerous. The question is “when is science stifling maverick creativity?” as opposed to “when is scientific knowledge refuting politically and financially-inspired bogus claims of climate denial?” these are significantly different positions yet so subtle. On the level of daily science, the source of funding that creates such destructive scepticism cannot be traced to the 1%, and leaves blogposts such as this in the realms of lunatic conspiracy. This is the purpose of confusion. And with the current level of collective confusion there can be no Unity to fight.

How can I ask for all to see through such subtle manipulation?

I have a completely misguided acquaintance who can put “likes” on my 1%-posts, and yet can support Trump. How confused is he? He does not have a mass movement base to his understanding. An individualist will examine Judith Curry’s individualist examination of science – the individualism that celebrates mavericks, and can see the partial truth of what she says as truth. The mass movement says “where is the hand of the 1%?”, and immediately looks at finance. Once you apply that paradigm you see the Koch Brothers and climate denial – whether Judith believes what she says or not.

I can support her analysis of the scientific establishment, and I thank the funding that has powered that. I can thank the right wing for the Corbett Report that brings this and other useful information to light. But if I am unsure I ask the mass movement question “where is the hand of the 1%?” …. and there is clarity.

As Mandtao the maths/stats man I am a supporter of scientific knowledge and scientific method. I attack the science establishment for similar reasons to Judith Curry’s video “the Republic of Science”, but in the end she is supporting the 1%, the Corbett Report is supporting the 1% by promoting her. All the scepticism around climate change can only be seen in terms of 1%-industries, the Koch Brothers campaign, and how any doubts that arise enable this industrial establishment to continue with the environmental damage and pollution – whatever “scientific point” Judith or others raise.

It is sad in this world that the 1% are so sick, so detached from the species they are a part of, that they want to destroy the very Unity of who we are – the ONE planet. And they will finance and manipulate at any level to enact their sickness. It is so hard to understand how these people became so sick, I understand why Icke wants to separate them and call them lizards, but they are just sick humans. We have to face the understanding that humanity can become as sick as these people.

<– Previous Post “If I were Bill Gates ….” Next Post “People before Profits”–>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Revisiting Confusion

Posted: 23/12/2017 by zandtao in Finance, Freedom, Insight, Science, Struggle
Tags: ,

In this post I discussed the role of confusion, I would now describe it as the new internal strategy of divide-and-rule colonialism. If we are confused we cannot unite against the 1%, it is that simple.

There is no confusion in Unity against 1% but we have been turned against this Unity. There has always been one-issue campaigning such as anti-racism, feminism, and pro-LBGQT, but this was usually done under a leftist umbrella that was vaguely socialist. But liberals have lost their socialist base and see their campaigns as more important than fighting the 1%, more important than fighting wars-for-profits, more important than fighting wage-slavery. As a result Liberals bought into the neo-liberalism of Obama, laying the grounds for disgruntled white working-class privilege that swung the balance in favour of Trump. I think there are sufficient indicators to say that it is not just a racist backlash against Obama, if these people had jobs they might well not have swung to Trump’s fascist populism.

Once the 1% got beyond Trump’s unpalatable populism, they found that they could gain from his rhetoric leading up to this horrendous tax bill. This article describes measures to promote support for this bill even when it has been passed. I suspect worse in the New Year as the GOP misuses their control until mid-term changes will perhaps alleviate their misuses of power. If such an analysis is correct then it is unlikely that Trump will get to a second term unless the 1% concertedly provide the jobs Trump has promised. In which case there will be further problems. What is worse for me is that the Democrats remain totally neoliberal, so if mid-terms go as predicted money will be put into democrats for Hillary. And she has become such a divisive figure. There needs to be a Bernie-backlash to turn back all the Trump “legislation”, the 1% will not allow that.

Trump has a “deplorable” support base who are becoming more entrenched against the liberal whining in the media. Whilst 1%-MSM fan the deplorable-liberal divide, both entrenched camps don’t get out of their comfort zones of Breitbart and righteous liberalism respectively. No Unity there.

But so far I have not considered the confusion. Fake News has become a popular slogan, and it is a major platform for confusion. It cements the new deplorable-liberal divide as Trump and Breitbart continue to define MSM as Fake News, and liberals accept 1%-MSM as mostly truth. But the strategy of Fake News does far more than cement this divide, the strategy creates a confusion where few know where to stand. Most people stood by an ideology but Fake News has undermined ideological standpoints by creating doubt. And this doubt has been fanned into hate – PCpolice-hate, feminist-hate, Liberal-hate, anti-SJW, Marxist-hate, collectivist-hate.

Concern about political bias in news is of course not new, but there has never been such a concerted strategy to cause such confusion. The BBC is well known on the Genuine Left for its bias as typified by its banning of Liar Liar by Captain Ska; plausible banning but biased. The BBC falls in line with MSM when discussing Occupy or the 1%, but on liberal issues they tend to be OK. “War-for-Profit does not exist and people are not exploited as wage-slaves” BBC The BBC offers liberals a place of employment, and is regularly attacked by anti-liberal sentiment such as the right wing and racists – to whom they give time because they are unbiassed. How long did they take to come to terms with Corbyn? But if you knew what they were about they were reliable. With Fake News everything is questioned. Previously the right accepted the BBC bias that was in their favour, and played the game. Trump has ended that game with the confusion he has caused. The right want the BBC to move to the right, to end the generally-accepted degree of supposed unbiassed BBC reporting, and just support right-wing bias. I am sure the establishment are as dismayed by this confusion as anyone else. Confusion is destroying an accepted fabric of society. Personally I don’t mind the confusion as the liberals will have to question what their whining achieves, and at the same time right-wing intellectuals who have some compassion will have to question why they are in bed with deplorables. But with the prevailing ignorance and lack of understanding of the right-wing and the power of its funders, there are major risks with this confusion. Prevailing social fear reacts to anarchy with military oppression, if the ensuing mass confusion turns to violence then there might well be increased daily military presence. What will happen to right-wing libertarian freedom then? Where will be your revered choice at any price?

As usual in education there is the unquestioning mainstream acceptance of liberal righteousness. Here:-

is a student methodology for examining Fake News. As described in the third and fourth steps news is not fake if it is accepted by consensus. But why not take the opportunity to question the fakeness of education – the degree of conditioning, why not examine our histories to see their bias? However in the current climate I would be a fool to advocate this because 1%-funding of views would just lead to a lurch further right. It is claimed that young users can see fake news in facebook, but do they really? Or can they just see the fake news that liberals see, and ignore the fake biassed infrastructure that I have been aware of all my adult life?

But Fake News is only the tip of the confusion strategy. Sceptics are legitimately questioning science, questioning is a legitimate part of scientific method. But instead of that questioning adding to the scientific process, it has been turned into a destabilising mechanism by finance. With Koch investment, climate deniers have gained a limited amount of credence. Trump supporters have been deluded into thinking Trump’s 1%-position over the Paris Climate Accord is in some way legitimate.

This 1%-undermining of science is a serious problem because instead of science being seen as a bank of knowledge there is now confusion as to any form of scientific verification. Science is now FAKE SCIENCE. But what is worse is that because scientific verity has been undermined ignorant pipsqueaks who have seen a youtube clip think they are equipped to discuss science. Whatever indoctrination occurs at university the level of academic knowledge that makes up a degree does compare somewhat favourably with a youtube clip.

Unfortunately science has already been hijacked by the 1%. Medicine was hijacked by Rockefeller and Carnegie towards the end of the nineteenth century (culminating with the Flexner Report) so that natural medicine was eschewed in favour of profit-oriented patented medicine as part of any medical degree. As a consequence of the confusion vaccines have been questioned, and right-wing intellectuals offering people the choice over vaccines is very dangerous to global health. Science should be questioned and resolved in-house amongst qualified scientists applying scientific method rather than entering the populist arena of profit. Scientific method is sound and needs to be respected. People need to return to accepting sound scientific judgement.

Unfortunately science has equally allowed itself to be hijacked by finance. Scientists wanting jobs are directing their research towards what will be funded, and as most funding comes from the 1% through technology for defence or gadget-profiteering, BigFood, BigPharma there is little genuine science-for-science’s sake. Knowledge per se has no value in the 1%-system.

Quantitative method has been extended to qualitative method especially in social science. Case study methodology is being promoted and whilst there are checks and balances desire for funding status or simply job-retention can leave issues of integrity behind. A case study draws inferences from what a few people say, is it science to draw inferences from what Trump says, from what Breitbart says? Is it science to accept a funded professorial watchlist such as Turning Point?

And then we have the absurdity of science-based medicine’s rejection of acupuncture because the research is too compelling and potentially unsound because it is non-western.

Confusion is now being blamed on the Russians by the right-wing. Obviously I have no personal knowledge of so-called Russian meddling, I am not sure what they will gain. I suspect it is just a tactic for the 1% to remove Trump when they choose. There is a rule of thumb in social analysis. Look at who it benefits. Confusion is benefitting the 1% and their main current stooge Trump. Confusion is lurching the world to the right, and again the 1% benefits – more war, more wage-slavery.

To end this confusion good people have to stand together with their only common value – compassion. End ideologies, just stand for compassion. Why do compassionate people hate liberals? Because they perceive ideology before compassion. Let’s end this divisive support for ideals that divide – be compassionate. If we are compassionate we are not compromised by ideals that put us in the same camp as deplorables. If we are compassionate we do not fight wars-for-profit, if we are compassionate we do not view fellow humans as wage-slaves.

End confusion, be compassionate.

<– Previous Post “Class War Lost!!” Next Post “Wise Compassion” –>

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


Yesterday I spent a long time considering the “Truth about Cancer” even though I only used half of one of the videos. There is a very clear conclusion – confusion. Why?

There is a well-known left-wing adage – divide-and-rule colonialism. Typically the hegemony would find an existing division usually religious or tribal, and favour one group – protestants in Ireland, land deals in Zimbabwe, Obote’s minority rule in Uganda.

Since Occupy in 2011 the ruling 1% have been concerned about a different Unity – the 99%. So they have been funding the internet to prevent Unity of the 99%. And the purpose of that funding is confusion that allows the status quo to remain – the status quo which accumulates profits for the 1%.

So let us examine the cancer issue through this confusion paradigm. There are two issues about which there are sound questions:-

Do the established treatments work?
Do the alternative treatments work?

When you begin to examine these questions with genuine scepticism you are unable to get an answer because the only people who can give you proper answers are independently-funded medical research scientists. The methodology of this research would have to be agreed by all parties so that conclusions could be generally accepted. This cannot happen because the major player, BigPharma, will not work with the other players, alternative treatments. Why? Because it would expose weakness in their established treatments – the cut/burn and poison of operation, radiation and chemotherapy. Without scientific evidence there is sufficient doubt for the established regimen of treatments to continue to be used. The people who now benefit from the established treatments, BigPharma and BigFinance, continue to do so.

What became very clear to me yesterday is that there is sufficient scientifically-verified data to warrant genuine scientific enquiry about both the above questions. Oncologists are apologists for their treatments, but they do not control research. It would require the whole of the cancer profession to stand up and demand appropriate research on these established treatments but there are too many vested interests for this to happen. So the confusion and status quo remains.

I did not investigate any of the alternative treatments yesterday but I have previously. There are strong cases that merit consideration. I am no expert, I do not believe there is a “cure”, but if I had cancer and I had money I would go Gerson. As I don’t have money I would improve the quality of my diet – it is good anyway, I would go to acupuncture as often as I could and do Chi Gung daily, exercise, try to find medical cannabis and meditate. I would listen to but not trust the advice of oncologists, and would never trust chemo unless I could be assured it would be part of the 2.1% successes in 5 years. But that is me and I am no expert so my recommendation means nothing.

And there again is the confusion. There could be clarity. If sufficient mainstream research were done I believe Gerson could be scientifically proven to work, and could then be funded by medical insurance or the NHS. But this is not scientifically known, and in my view will never be scientifically knowable because BigPharma will never allow it. Confusion. The same might also apply to other alternative treatments.

Whilst we live in a 1%-system there will always be confusion, whilst the profits of BigPharma, BigFinance and BigFood are all dependent on the status quo it will never change from confusion. Treatments will remain the same. Ordinary people will be subjected to cut, burn and poison perhaps unnecessarily. There will be some benefits so that there will be some reason to accept the establishment. Some people will go to alternative treatments, and there will be talk of cures as can be found widely on the net. But nothing will be resolved, there will be confusion and that suits the 1% of BigPharma.

This issue of confusion also explains the funding for alternatives. Mainstream science will continue to produce some studies about the established treatments, studies questioning the status quo will never be universally accepted. There will be funding for some of the alternative treatments because individuals benefit – the rich need to know where to go. There will be funding for sceptics who decry the mainstream as well as for those who decry alternatives. Why? Because it all creates confusion and that confusion benefits the 1%.

And then there is the laughable position of the supposed scientists at SBM discussing acupuncture. “This is important to the understanding of the acupuncture literature, as many of the positive studies are coming out of China. The unrealistically high percentage of positive studies makes the Chinese body of clinical literature very suspect.” Even when there is no doubt they appeal to racism, infer the Chinese scientists “liars”, and create confusion.

If you have cancer what do you do? Don’t trust anyone – including me. Don’t trust the oncologists but try to determine what the state of scientific research is with regards to your cancer, treatment and the longevity of the treatment. Change your lifestyle. Eat healthy organic food, watch what you drink and drink healthily. Do aerobic exercise. Find some form of exercise that promotes the chi, Chi Gung, Tai Chi or others, and good breathing – prana. And meditate. With all of this you will probably fill your days!!! . These are recommendations, changing lifestyle is not necessarily a cure but there is nothing there that can hurt – all these lifestyle choices are beneficial.

I refer back to Occupy and the 99%. At that time there was no confusion, apathy but no confusion. The message was growing that the 1% were the source of all the problems. Since then the 1% have increasingly funded the power of confusion.

Brexit cannot be resolved – confusion. Huge money was invested in Brexit and is still invested so there is no resolution as evidenced by Tories fighting amongst each other. There will be at least 4 years of this confusion whilst the 1% exploit behind the scenes.

Trump is just about division and confusion. Try to define what he is about, and you only come up with a political and power-hungry ego. He decries the 1% yet he is one of them. He talks about helping white people but gives tax breaks to the superrich. Everything he says, the way he tweets is just to cause confusion, and whilst there is confusion his special people can work behind the scenes for the 1%.

The new Divide-and-Rule colonialism is 1%-confusion.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Hagelin

Posted: 31/03/2017 by zandtao in Big Pharma, Insight, ONE planet, Science

I was put onto Hagelin and was impressed to see this clip. He was the leader of the Natural Law party (and presidential candidate) but I was told he was libertarian. I have always had sympathy for Libertarians, and this clip has just added to it. Why are these compassionate people right-wing BLOGLINK? But the answer with Libertarians is always the same for me, it is not the theory but the need for staged pragmatism especially in the time of such global bullies as the corporations that is so important. I don’t want regulations but the regulations that go first protect the people – the 1% will never allow their regulations to be quashed. What is the point of removing protectionism when the real control is with cartels. I love the idea of barter, am happy with farmers’ markets with healthy food and first-hand trading, but movements towards free trade globally only benefit the 1%. Follow the money. 1%-money never supports socialism but it does support libertarianism because it knows interim libertarian measures benefit the 1%.

Having said that I would love for socialism to discuss consciousness. To perceive religion as the opiate of the masses is true up to a functional point but it misses the most important thing, the insight and understanding that comes with deep religious understanding are revolutionary. What is worse (because it is not likely to happen sufficiently) this insight is needed for the survival of Gaia and humanity. How I would love for the left to embrace spirituality, and accept some sort of consciousness explanation of life. But the problem is that the left is dominated by left-wing intellectuals who have not experienced spiritual consciousness, insight or whatever is chosen to discuss this religious experience. But there are a few.

But there is something very important that Hagelin does, he brings discussion of consciousness and meditation into mainstream academia. Wherever this blog goes that is so important and mustn’t be forgotten.

Where quantum physics goes loses me, and that is the first half of his talk. But I do not ignore it, my science is just not up to it. When I was young I came across two books, The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav and The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Kapra. Basically these said to me that once you go subatomic it becomes impossible to be exact. You can measure as momentum or as particle but you cannot say that subatomically there are particles or there is momentum. In the Turning Point Kapra spoke of the Newtonian paradigm. Newton’s 3 laws talk about particles, and this works fine with “touchable” objects. But subatomically it is not certain there are particles. But because science’s axiomatic approach is a Newtonian paradigm, then it is assumed to be Newtonian subatomically.

At the same time that I was reading about this (mid-70s) I was becoming aware of the reality of chi (prana). It made perfect sense to me that subatomically there was energy, that we can measure the effects of this energy, but that this energy did not fit in with the Newtonian paradigm. Because I have experienced the chi this clearly meant to me that the Newtonian paradigm did not extend subatomically, so the investigation of quarks etc. subatomically with all the probabilities associated with it did not matter to me. As a way of measuring chi there might be mileage in this but I am not sure. In this same clip, Hagelin takes this subatomic “investigation” into unified field theory. It sounds to me that such strings are indistinguishable from energy; why not call it chi and investigate chi? One significant answer is BigPharma; there is no profit in a few needles and a trained acupuncturist, and BigPharma has significant academic control because of their amount of research funding.

Accepting subatomics as chi, it is a very small leap to accept that there is as Annie Besant describes consciousness in an atom – theosophy (here or Alice Bailey here. And this brings me to the second part of Hagelin’s talk – Maharishi’s consciousness. I use theosophy to illustrate this again because theosophy talks of a layer cake:-

When I first raised the issue of unity, I was meaning political unity that could be found by adopting approaches similar to the Unity Platform. But this political unity is very limited compared to the Unity that is put forward by many spiritual people – including Hagelin. The terminology I use for this Unity is “Gaia” or ONE Planet. It amounts to there being ONE life that is the planet, Gaia. This life force functions as a Unity but from inside we perceive separate individuals and forms of life. Science takes this separation as axiomatic, and misunderstands so much because of that – not least the misunderstanding concerning the sub-atomic realm. For me the sea is the best way to understand the Unity that is Gaia. What happens when you stand in the sea and a wave knocks you over? Are you knocked over by a particle, several particles, the momentum of the wave, the sea’s energy or even the sea’s consciousness (whatever that is)? It depends on how you setup your definitions (or axioms) as to what knocks you over.

In the second part of the talk, Hagelin links the unified field theory to consciousness. Whilst his conclusion is excellent his methodology left me numb; it was so academic. It reminded me of theosophy taken to extremes with diagrams, more layer cakes, parallel isomorphisms, and I have given all of these up. Buddhism talks of 5 skhandas one of which is sankhara – mental proliferations, and I see much of what Hagelin talks about as mental proliferations for academia. There are postulations of 10 dimensions or whatever, and the mathematical consistency supports his arguments, but show me the dimensions. But there is matter chi skhandas and pure being – simple. The real issue of understanding is whether we meditate – enough.

Is Unified Field theory consciousness? As far as I know, yes. The complicated intricacies are necessary for academia, and that is the medium Hagelin works in so I fully support him going for it. For me I see chi and consciousness, and meditation as the way of understanding. Hagelin, enjoy your mental proliferations; what you are doing is great.

But how can the pure being as compassion be found on the political right? In terms of Unity of Being and political unity in the Unity Platform LINK there is togetherness – great.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

How to live to 100.

Posted: 14/07/2016 by zandtao in Health, Science, Struggle
Tags:

This is an RSA clip on how to live to a 100.

This raises interesting questions that are not necessarily discussed in the RSA talk. I believe there are misconceptions concerning longevity and life expectancy that need to be considered. Compared to 500 years ago our life expectancy has greatly increased, this is undoubtedly true. Here I would accept all of life expectancy, average life expectancy and importantly quality of life having increased during that longer life. Once we decrease that figure of 500 years and consider the trend different questions could get asked, as yet I am not sure what those questions should be. I am searching for those questions.

Let’s consider that search for those questions, and what are those search parameters? They revolve around the third category quality of life although they include longevity issues. The RSA talk graph looked at life expectancy in western countries but what happens if we consider degenerative diseases? I note that this graph considered longest life – a mode, a strange statistical measure to choose when mean or median might be more appropriate. What do the statistics look like if we include cancer, heart disease, diabetes (II), others? What about Alzheimer’s? Statistically those people are living longer but what about the quality of their life?

There is an unwritten assumption in mainstream scientific discussion on longevity that these degenerative diseases are diseases that we have not found the cure for yet. Typical of this is the cancer industry. Huge amounts of money are put into research, much of it wasted in my view, to consider cancer as a disease in which we could find a causative agent (such as virus) and then find a healing solution. But what if we thought of cancer in another way? What if cancer is some measure of quality of lifestyle? What if cancer were some kind of natural response to the quality of our lifestyle, and here I include lack of stress, natural health, lack of chemical intake, quality food etc. Science in curing disease seeks to find chemical methods such as antibiotics to heal disease, and yet there are side effects that have great debilitating effects; typically with antibiotics how does it affect the liver? Particularly when we consider how mainstream science looks at healing cancer – chemotherapy etc., we produce an appalling quality of life, a quality of life that is so bad that cancer sufferers might prefer a shorter life without the mainstream solutions.

Cancer treatments also have indicators that are relevant to this discussion of longevity because there are alternative treatments that examine lifestyle, healthy eating and even cannabis as healing methodologies. Unfortunately statistical evidence in the mainstream as to the effectiveness of these alternative treatments does not abound because, especially in America, the cancer industry prevents research into such. Macrobiotics is sometimes considered a “cure” but macrobiotic eating is not a medicinal approach. You cannot give a person a few sprouts and measure whether they heal. It is a lifestyle approach that almost has an infinite number of factors that compound each other in the healing process. However the medical use of cannabis, and the effects of cannabinoids might well be more easily researched if the funding direction so choose – unfortunately mainstream science does not want cannabis to replace the cost-intensive treatments that are now generally accepted.

I have explained why the science in these areas is not clear but what ought to be clear I feel is that the scientific assumption that longevity will simply increase as scientific method develops has some doubts. When considering longevity at some point lifestyle factors starts to affect the increased longevity that scientific method is producing. I accept the premise that scientific method increases and will continue to increase life expectancy but this scientific method has to exist within a controlled environment. In other words lifestyle considerations are considered beyond the scope of the experimental procedure, and as such the experimental method would attempt to control and factor out the impact of lifestyle. What would be seen as increase in longevity brought about by scientific advance would have to be seen as separate from the downward impacts of lifestyle, personal stress, work-based stress, the poorer quality of our food intake etc.

There is something else that is coming with ageing that has only recently (last 50 years) been considered, and that revolves around the notion of retirement age. Let us consider this as a notion. My first instinct is to launch into a tirade on wage-slavery but let me try to consider this in a mainstream way of accepting work as a choice. In general it is considered that we are physically incapable of working beyond a certain age, that age is nominally in the west taken as 65 – 60 for teachers thankfully. Pensions are now a big problem. I don’t know whether they have miscalculated but the pension burden appears to be damaging to the economy. However personally I do not trust such viewpoints, I very much doubt that money is being lost I just suspect they want more profits from the investment and that they want to increase the amount of time we work.

Here again I cannot avoid the notion of wage-slavery, they now feel we can work longer before putting us out to pasture. But there is a legitimate side to this coin. I took early retirement but do volunteer teaching at 64 – 4 years past the retirement age for teachers. I can do this because I was not burned out between 54 and 60 because of the early retirement. On reflection my health was a serious issue prior to retirement, the only play I had was during the holidays, being at home after work was little more than sleep and tv watching.

The nature of the work is important to consider. As I got older the general strategy of management was to increasingly want more work for their money; there were increasing pressures to do after-school work etc. This was a productivity drive, and getting more productivity without paying any more irrespective of whether the teachers were already working hard. As I got older my work got better, my work management got better, my quality of teaching students improved, and I have no doubts at all my teaching got better. But the physical toll it took on me definitely worsened. I want to look into this improvement more. Compared with when I started – or my first five years, I knew so much more about what I was teaching. My personal professional discipline was so much better, in terms of the classroom I was so much more value for money. But at 50 there were certain lacks, typically I couldn’t play 5-a-side after school on a Friday before I went out on the town.

But there was a “hidden” side that changed. I never bought into the system so even when I started I never accepted the values of system education. That never changed but as I got older it felt like I was more a thorn in the side of the management. When younger that non-acceptance often showed itself as a simplistic confrontation that never worried management. But when I was older my confrontation also included an element of recognition as to their incompetence, my position was closer to them and so I was more of a threat. It became clear to me that young energy, even that energy that rejected, was much less of problem than the knowledge that experience brought especially of that experience had not been bought off.

It seems to me that this discussion about age is being fundamentally driven by a desire to increase retirement age. I think that is misguided and cruel. People nearing retirement age need to retire – they have been used up. But in so doing tremendous experience and the wisdom that comes with it is being lost. This wisdom is an asset that is not used. It is lost because older working people are expected to maintain the same workload as younger people and also use that wisdom as well. That is not practical. Here is a bad example. The generals sat at home use their wisdom and the troops are sent in and killed. In this example the wisdom of the generals is used. But because of tiredness the wisdom of the experienced is not used as much as it could be.

There needs to be an alteration in work-based practices, and that alteration needs to be profession-specific. In terms of teaching there is no doubt in my mind that at 54 I had much to offer and at 64 I still have much to offer but physically at 54 I found the job hard and now would find it almost impossible. I completely understand the actuarial figures for teachers, and have many recollections of hearing of teachers who have died soon after retiring. They were stressed out by the demands of the job and just pegged out. It always seemed to me that these people struggled through the day, and as a younger teacher I had so much more energy. But they had more wisdom. I am suggesting that in some way wisdom needs to be recognised and traded off against energy. How to do this I don’t know but what I do know is that if older teachers were not stressed so much in their job their experience could be used long after 60. So long as their bodies were respected and their job recognised as different. I think this change should happen at 50 – or even earlier, but I have no idea how this would work because of salary, promotion and ambition.

But I don’t suspect this discussion of age is driven by a consideration of wisdom, but simply can we make the work units last longer?

And here is a good point for those who have retired. If this process of recognising experience could be introduced how much better would retirees feel because they would still be contributing and not just being thrown out to pasture. Older people know they have the wisdom without the bodies, they just wish people could use their wisdom.

In the talk she started with an assumption “what happens when everyone lives to be a 100?” As discussed this has so many holes. I found the discussion interesting but frightening. The basis of the discussion was an attempt to examine how to change views of a working life from that of education to work to retirement into a more flexible view. However such discussions are very dangerous. Working people have the right to pensions a significant proportion of which is paid by the employer. These pension rights have been under threat already, and the flexible view that is being presented could well mean that employers do not contribute to pensions. This would be a terrific loss in which working people will be seen as providing all their money once they have stopped work – and that the employer will contribute little. The type of vaguaries being discussed by these two around fulfilment and the like without recognition that there needs to be pension contribution is horrendous and tantamount to opportunist exploitation of needed financial security. Typical – there will always be academics who will sell out workers’ rights for their own careers.

The lack of structure that they describe provides huge loopholes for the employer to escape their contributions. They can discuss all kinds of theory of changing life models and structures but when the employer is looking for an excuse to avoid pension contribution such discussions are carte blanche for exploitation. Frighteningly dangerous – false assumptions about longevity and based on those assumptions alteration of the negotiation model that provided security for ordinary people. Book deals will have royalties, workers don’t.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Enquiry – if wrong?

Posted: 25/06/2016 by zandtao in Insight, ONE planet, Science
Tags: ,


Brad wrote a blog based on a book by Chuck Klosterman “But what if we were wrong?” The book asks the question from the perspective of future man looking back. I haven’t read the book, doubt if I ever will but very much like the notion of questioning. Questioning is most essential in any learning and any form of spiritual life. I would normally be interested in such a book of questioning but then Brad quoted some questions and I didn’t see deep questioning. The first question that future man would have to ask is “Why did they allow so many wars?”, and if future man is not dominated by corporations “Why did they allow corporations to create these wars for profits?”

I liked this quote about Buddhism when Brad advised against Chuck being a Buddhist “If he ever did get into a form of Buddhism that wasn’t totally corrupted by religiousity or drowning in academic stuffiness, he might find it very appealing. And if he ever started writing about Buddhism his book sales would sink to the level of mine, and he’d have to go back to writing for the Akron Beacon Journal.” The issue of the lack of book sales is not about Buddhism, it is about marketing. If Brad found a mainstream publisher and was willing to be paraded like a stuffed dummy to meet ….. rant, he might make more sales. If he wrote for profit he might make more money. Tom Clancy, or mainstream galaxy shoot-em-ups with Godzilla. It is the truth that makes Brad’s books unmarketable (or unwilling to be marketed). I do not know why Eckhart Tolle was successful, after Oprah I know why. End rant.

For me what was interesting in this blog was his discussion of intelligence especially his experience at the Tokyo park bench. “I can recall a moment around 15 years ago when I was sitting on a park bench in Tokyo eating my lunch. I was watching some crows strutting around the park looking for food. Suddenly I noticed that the very same intelligence that looked at the world through my eyes also looked at the world through the eyes of those crows.”Immediately after he wrote “It’s very difficult to write a good, watertight, rational kind of explanation for why I knew this to be true. …. It even sounds dopey to me and I know it to be true.” Brad, do you expect there to be a rational explanation? It frustrates me to see this type of quote. The explanation is not rational, it is beyond reason as Dogen says (paraphrase):- reason drops away in zazen. This truth is about Unity, about Intelligence that is Unity, you know it is truth, why be ashamed of that truth – dopey? True thinking is not normal thinking or why would the world be in such a mess? There is a huge question that I wonder whether Chuck Klosterman asks “Why do we assume that we are separate beings simply because our bodies are separate?” There is wisdom and tradition that talks of this Unity yet that wisdom is ignored. Does Chuck ask “Is it wise to ignore traditional wisdom of centuries?”

“This insight seems to be connected to my Zen practice, but it’s difficult to say just how.” For me it is one understanding of Vipassana meditation that the purpose is genuine insight. Since doing Zazen I feel that the purpose of meditation is this genuine insight. Buddhadasa was always keen to stress insight, and I have a feeling he liked Zen because it didn’t bother with the proliferations that abounded in his own Theravada tradition.

“None of my teachers ever told me anything like this. It’s not part of Buddhist doctrine. At least not as such. But if I go back and read some of the older Buddhist writers with that insight in mind, some of the stranger things they said start to make a lot more sense.” This issue of Unity is commonplace but I suspect that perception comes from my background. My first dogma approach to this stuff came from theosophy, and then a fusion of Hindu-Buddhist teachings until eventually I reached Zen.

This is worth considering so we can understand intelligence “Intelligence isn’t a function of the brain. It isn’t contained there. The complexity of a creature’s brain doesn’t determine its intelligence.

“It (BZ The brain) does determine how that creature is able to use its intelligence and what it can focus its intelligence on and to what degree it can maintain that focus. So there are huge differences between creatures (and non-creatures).”

Brad obtusely referred to measuring intelligence for comparison. At present we don’t measure our own intelligence. What we measure is an ability to do IQ tests or their equivalent. These tests are created by academia, and as such would obviously rate academics with high scores. Academia, being the lynchpin of the Church of Reason, is not going to see intelligence as beyond reason. When we examine the intelligence of dogs or other animals we are familiar with, we tend to ascribe human behaviour to the animals, and once ascribed value the animal as intelligent because it mimics human behaviour. The most intelligent lion I ever saw was one who sat on a chair under a tree on the edges of the desert smoking a pipe.

Brad mentioned the book by Zen Master Seung Sahn on “Only Don’t Know”. I have not read this but it seems to me that we have to unlearn our conditioning, and then be in a state of permanent enquiry into what we experience and what we are told.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Plasticity

Posted: 19/05/2014 by zandtao in Insight, Science
Tags:

Michael Merzenich on plasticity

Built for change – shows brain – described adaptable machine.

Abilities depend on history and therefore education. 1% do not understand Nature and meditation because they can’t experience them. But they can be afraid of them – know thy enemy.

40% Sao Paolo can balance football on head.

Bring people up in factory towns because they will develop skills for that factory. No travel. Brain adapts but in a sense becomes smaller because of lack of diversity. Therefore it has a need to express – meditation. Esp as creativity will not be allowed as creativity opens mind in areas that cannot be measured.

These different abilities come from the plasticity of the brain but where does this plasticity start and end? My world becomes focussed on meditation, writing and Thailand. The Path has given me this path, yet previously it was focussed on teaching. How much has the brain changed? The path has changed the Path hasn’t. Does the mind create the plasticity of the brain? How much plasticity does the brain have? Is it the mind that has plasticity because the mind is not as solid as the brain?

I gave up. He was describing everything coming from the brain, and plasticity followed from that. Mind was not mentioned before I gave up. But if the human model is based on unity with mind/consciousness as a sense that is distinct from the brain and the 5 senses that are based on the brain then plasticity does not enter into it. The functions he describes as plasticity would be expected within a human who is based on unity with a mind as a sense.

Doesn’t Nature better explain that an infant develops into manhood with appropriate cognitive changes that would appear to the limited brain model view as “plasticity”? This talk is just a mish-mash based on an erroneous human model.

This does help Arico because it is this flawed model that is at the basis of the chip as control notion. This plasticity somewhat inadequately describes Unity and mind, and essentially is beyond chip control. Sure the chip can measure the skills of the Sao Paolo footballer, but it cannot measure plasticity – Unity and mind. Why would something technological ever be able to do so? Just a flawed concept from a flawed concept.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Jill Bolte Taylor

Posted: 07/05/2014 by zandtao in Insight, Science
Tags:


I came across her TED talk maybe 6 years ago – it has brought her fame.

Her brother was schizophrenic, basically saying her dreams were in reality and the brother’s were delusional. Examining biological differences in the brain between normal and schuzophrenic. This is so full of science’s confuscated brain and mind assumptions. One such simple assumption to be questioned:-

Schizophrenia is generally assumed to be a mental illness – presumably an illness of the mind so why is she examining physical brain?

A blood vessel in the left half of her brain exploded – infant in a woman’s body. Lost her left brain in the stroke.

Right parallel processor, left – serial processor. Describes both halves as different personalities.

Right – present moment, thinks in pictures, learns kinesthetically through the movement of our bodies.
Gives a collage of senses of what the present moment is – horrendous number of assumptions. Conflicts Eckhart to begin with. Unity

Left – linear and methodically, past and future, details of present moment. Thinks in language. I am – separate.

Stroke – experienced stepping back. Lost physical boundaries and could just experience energy. Brain chatter silent. Felt a oneness – euphoria. Realised – having a stroke. Could not read numbers, could not speak or understand language. Felt a surrender, an enormous “spirit”. 8 years to recover.

We are life power of universe with manual dexterity with two minds

Right – associate right side with unity

Left – separate, self ego

Conclusion

Wonderful experience for her, so powerful. But the power does not mean conclusions correct. She already saw things in terms of brain not mind, and she applied that framework to her experience. Logic – no left brain so experience happen in right brain, therefore happen in right brain for everyone.

Interesting right-left stuff:-

Right – parallel, thinks in pictures, learns kinesthetically through the movement of our bodies.

Left – serial, linear and methodically, past and future, details of present moment. Thinks in language.

Arico – pictures can be measured, serial processing can be recognised as happening. The thinking process can be measured but not the thought. Beyond this processing cannot. Much of Jill’s experience is beyond measurement. The haemorrhage could be measured, maybe Arico meditation could register as some form of illness. What areas of the brain does meditation register on?

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Research!

Posted: 06/05/2014 by zandtao in Insight, Science
Tags: ,


This is the first time I have ever “done research”- does that mean I am a writer? Perhaps it is foolish to say this but I was watching Elysium. I had already started Arico (16,000 words) and it is going to take a rewrite, but there is absolutely no way that these chips will be avoided – whatever the technology. They are patient – look at their approach. We have lost control of our money. I was in the UK earning for a year. There was a bill and I was used to going somewhere with the bill and paying it. This particular utility said I must pay direct debit or I would be charged extra – administrative costs. What costs? Under direct debit they still had to send me a letter telling me how much I had paid – the difference – control – they had it, I didn’t. ID cards are being sold to us as beneficial, containing health data etc., this is their patience. They will wear down the liberals fighting this, some incident will be construed and security says we will have to carry them – 9/11 type incident. Convenience will turn them into chips that people will want. I am not going to have a killswitch, maybe something similar – an illness requiring medical treatment?

I woke up thinking about these things – interesting.

Of course the research is interesting in itself. I have long accepted meditation as Nature’s tool of survival, transposing that survival to include chips is no big stretch.

It just struck me that if I know meditation is survival then they would.

A quote “Functional magnetic resonance imaging scans (fMRI scans) of Tibetan monks and Hindu yogis have shown that during deep meditation the parts of the brain that gives us a sense of location in time and space are less active.”

Zandtao – 3 tenets – mind energy and body are a continuum, look at the chakras and glands so meditation will have some physical resonance. A strand, I am going to use some kind of strand implant, will show some real-time MRI equivalent that can flag meditation as a danger. The question I woke up thinking about is this, if you are consciously meditating then you can create a mindmap for the strand – strictly mindmap is wrong as it is a physical mapping of the brain but science doesn’t know the difference. It will never admit it cannot measure ALL meditation because science is arrogant and science will never change its paradigm to accept meditation as empirical method. If you are not conscious how will meditation occur that cannot be flagged, how do you create a mindscan when you don’t know it needs to be created.

People can measure meditation. Two people in monasteries for a long time, there was a difference in strength straight after, daily life soon took that strength. But I cannot see that strength in meditators – no benchmark

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.