Quote to Live By #2

Year's end is neither an end nor a beginning but a going on, 

with all the wisdom that experience can instill in us. 

Hal Borland

Exploring Thought: Buddhism

A great amount of my personal exploration of the world has been exploring Buddhism.  As I began to doubt, I felt more pulled towards Buddhism. This post is not supposed to be an overview of Buddhism but acts like a scrapbook of sorts of concepts that I like.
One of the foundations of Buddhist thought comes with the Eightfold Path, which lists eight practices. You'll see that each beings with the word "right," which is the closest translation from the original Sanskrit. In actuality, the word denotes a completion, an idealness, and a perfection.

A humorous kitteh enjoys his Buddhist lifestyle.

1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

[Please pardon the formatting for the rest of the post; there is a glitch in it somewhere.] I won't go into detail of each aspect, but I'll describe an example. Let's use Right Intention. "Right intention can be described best as commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement." Read more here. 
The nature of these practices is to have a good moral code, which is often a basis for different religions. I like how Buddhism is so often broken down into lists; this one gives an overarching set of not laws so much as how we should look at the world and go about our lives.  
The reason I don't consider myself a Buddhist is because I can't wrap my head around yet another Buddhist list: the Four Noble Truths.
1. Life is full of suffering.
2. The cause of suffering is attachment to materials, people, and ideas.
3. Suffering can end when we detach ourselves and reach the peace that is Nirvana.
4. We must follow the Eightfold Path.

They basically state that life is full of suffering and that the cause of suffering is that we  can't let go of so many things: the people we love, the ideas and perceptions about the world, our material goods. Because of this, Buddhism seems to denounce having close relationships with people in order to reduce suffering, not because love isn't a good thing but because we will eventually suffer when we lose that person or when that person loses us. We have to let go of these things and reach an inner peace called Nirvana, and we can begin that process by following the Eightfold Path.  I can't grasp this whole idea of detachment. I would so much rather give my entire being in love to others and suffer over detaching myself and avoiding suffering. "'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all," right? Read more here. 
But there are so many other interesting aspects in Buddhist thought that I love.
For example, this list is called The Four Immeasurables:
The four immeasurables
May all beings have happiness and the causes of happiness. 
May all beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering. 
May all beings rejoice in the well-being of others. 
May all beings live in peace, free from greed and hatred.
Each of the four verses corresponds to a mental state: loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and peace (or equanimity).
Kalama Sutta
The people of Kalama asked the Buddha who to believe out of all the ascetics, sages, venerables, and holy ones who, like himself, passed through their town. They complained that they were confused by the many contradictions they discovered in what they heard. The Kalama Sutta is the Buddha's reply.

–	Do not believe anything on mere hearsay.
–	Do not believe in traditions merely because they are old and have been handed down for many generations and in many places.
–	Do not believe anything on account of rumors or because people talk a a great deal about it.
–	Do not believe anything because you are shown the written testimony of some ancient sage.
–	Do not believe in what you have fancied, thinking that, because it is extraordinary, it must have been inspired by a god or other wonderful being.
–	Do not believe anything merely because presumption is in its favor, or because the custom of many years inclines you to take it as true.
–	Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and priests.
–	But, whatever, after thorough investigation and reflection, you find to agree with reason and experience, as conducive to the good and benefit of one and all and of the world at large, accept only that as true, and shape your life in accordance with it.

The same text, said the Buddha, must be applied to his own teachings.

–	Do not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.

This is basically the Buddhists' way of saying, "do not accept something just because it is taught." Challenge your teacher's ideas. Develop your own (seems like a contradiction with being free from suffering, but that's not the point).
And what about the Seven Blunders of the World? It's basically a seven-fold parenting guide. Teach this to your kids.
Seven Blunders of the World
  
1. Wealth without work
2. Pleasure without conscience
3. Knowledge without character
4. Commerce without morality
5. Science without humanity
6. Worship without sacrifice
7. Politics without principle
from this site. 
One Buddhist master put pretty much everything else simply:
The greatest achievement is selflessness.
The greatest worth is self-mastery.
The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.
The greatest precept is continual awareness.
The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.
The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways.
The greatest magic is transmuting the passions.
The greatest generosity is non-attachment.
The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.
The greatest patience is humility.
The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.
The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances.
From this site.

The Beginning of...well, Everything

I first have to establish a disclaimer. I don't know what I am religiously. I don't even know if I like the concept of religion. In any case, I go by the rule that 

"I respect faith, but it's doubt that gets you an education." (Wilson Mizner) 

But I think we can agree that we all wonder about where all of this came from and why we're here. This is a topic that StumbleUpon has found that I'm fascinated in. It likes to show me things like this:

which it so interesting. As I've observed religion over the last few years, I've found that a lot of the purpose of it is to create explanations. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What should our moral code be? Humans take on this very self-centered perception when it comes how we got here. But I side with science when it comes to "the beginning."

Below is an argument between a theist (T) and an atheist (A) with much thanks from this site.

T: Where did the universe come from?
A: Why did it have to come from anything?
T: Everything has to come from something.
A: Then, you tell me. Where did the universe came from?
T: The universe came from God.
A: Where did God come from?
T: God did not have to come from anything. He always was.
A: Then everything does not have to come from something after all. Perhaps the universe always was.

T: Philosopher William Lane Craig has argued that the universe had a beginning, therefore it must have had a cause. That cause is God.
A: Quantum events can happen without cause. Perhaps our universe was a quantum event in a larger universe that always was.
T: You have no evidence for this.
A: You have no evidence against it. Current physics and cosmology allow for such a scenario.

T: How could this happen? Where did the matter and energy of the universe come from?
A: Matter was created from energy in the early universe. Observations indicate that the positive energy of matter is exactly balanced by negative gravitational potential energy. Thus, the total energy of the universe is zero and no energy (or very little--just the amount allowed by quantum mechanics) was required to produce the universe.

T: Where did the order of the universe come from?
A: It could have been produced spontaneously by natural processes of a type that are now beginning to be understood in physics. One such process is called "spontaneous symmetry breaking." It's like the formation of a snowflake.

T: Still, the second law of thermodynamics says that disorder, or entropy, must increase with time. It must have started out more orderly than it is now, as created by God.
A: An expanding universe allows increasing room for order to form. The universe could have started as a tiny black hole with maximum entropy, produced by a quantum fluctuation, and then exploded in the big bang.
T: You can't prove that. No one was there to see it.
A: You can't disprove it. Such a scenario is allowed by current scientific knowledge.

T: Many prominent scientists don't think the big bang happened. What does that do to your scenario?
A: The data from cosmological observations, which has improved enormously in just the last few years, has left no doubt among current working cosmologists that the big bang happened. The remaining holdouts are a few older astronomers who are gradually dying out. They are like some nineteenth century chemists and physicists who refused to accept the atomic theory to their dying days. Furthermore, the big bang is used by theists such as Craig and Hugh Ross to support their theologies. It does not, but I caution atheists not to argue against theism by saying the big bang did not occur. It very definitely did.

T: But isn't the universe fine tuned for life? Isn't it true that the slightest change of any one of a number of physics constants would make life impossible? Is this not evidence for a universe intelligently designed for life?
A: The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine tuned for the universe. If we had a universe with different constants, we might have a different kind of life.
T : Doesn't life require carbon, which would not exist without a delicate balance of nuclear parameters?
A: Our kind of life, yes. We do not know about other kinds of life.
T: You can't prove that life is possible without carbon.
A: I do not have the burden of proof here. You are making the claim that only one kind of life is possible, carbon-based life. You have to prove that. I am simply saying that we do not know and so cannot say the universe is designed for life as we know it. It could have been an accident. Nothing in current science says that is impossible,

T: So, even if everything that happens is natural, as you claim, where did the laws of nature come from?
A: The laws of nature are misnamed. They are not necessarily rules that govern the universe, that sit out there in some kind of Platonic reality. They could just as well simply be human inventions, descriptions we have made of observations.
T: Then they are subjective. We can all make our own laws.
A: Not quite. We can make up different laws if we want, but they are not scientific unless they agree with observations. The laws of physics can be written in many different ways, but they agree so well with the data that we are confident they describe aspects of reality.
T: Well, then where did those aspects of reality come from, if not from God?
A: Why did they have to come from anything? But, that's how we started this discussion.

T: Still, you have to explain why there is something rather than nothing.
A: Define nothing.
T: Nothing. No thing. No matter, no energy, no space, no time, no laws of physics.
A: No God?
T: God is a separate entity who created matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics from nothing.
A: I won't ask you again who created God. Rather, why was it necessary for the universe to have come from nothing?
T: It had to come from something.
A: But you just said it came from nothing!

Fascinating, right? I especially am interested in the concept that our lives are fine-tuned to the universe, not the other way around. This dawned on me after reading a DearBlankPleaseBlank about global warming which went something like this: 


Dear humans facing global warming,
      I'll be fine. You guys are screwed, though.
                 Love, the earth.


It's true. The earth happens to be at the right parameters for life right now. We're the ones throwing it out of balance, and if that continues, we won't be able to live anymore. But though I am quite the eco chick who runs around saying "save the Earth!", I realize that that's kind of a self-centered way to put it. We're not saving the earth. We're saving the way that Earth is now for the sake of our being able to live. Of course we're also trying to protect other life and the like, but the Earth could live without us. Heck, it might be better off without us. 


From the beginning of the world to global warming...that's what Paradigm Carnival is about. 

Quote to Live By #1

"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old when we stop playing." 

-George Bernard Shaw

The Better Stoplight

Cute, right? You have to wonder how it would go over with the people. My biggest worry would be seeing it from far away. I do like the notion have seeing how long the light will be. For environmental reasons, I've heard it said that it is beneficial to turn off your engine if you'll be sitting at the light for more than sixty seconds. Some lights I'm more familiar with and I know it will be long enough to turn my engine off; ones in new places I can't know until it's too late. The future of stoplights? Maybe. Tell me what you think about it.

Explanation Desired: Zodiac Signs

I'm usually a critic of things that look immediately hooky. Send this to eleven people and I'll have good luck? Not for me. But for a good part of my life I've had some confidence in astrological signs. I don't abide by daily/weekly/monthly horoscopes (now these I think are untrue) but personality wise? The descriptions are strangely accurate.

For example, I'm a Virgo and proud of it. Most all of the characteristics that Virgos are said to have I certainly have.

I once told my dad about astrological signs. He made a really good point: he said that you could read any of the twelve astrological descriptions without seeing the name at the top and identify with it. This point makes sense. If I see another personality profile for, say, Aries, but I don't know that it's Aries , I could probably say to myself, "yes, I am adventurous." But I've looked over the other profiles, and I do feel like I identify several times more closely with the Virgo descriptions. I'm analytical. Hard-working. Perfectionistic, sometimes too much so. Reliable. Fussy.

Even scarier is the description of personalities of people born on my birthday: "Extremely creative, you are also able to turn your creations into something practical. A born entrepreneur, you seem to have endless new ideas. A tendency to over-analyze your relationships should be watched. While you are fully capable of taking the lead, nevertheless you enjoy serving in some manner, whether it's through teaching or simply finding joy in tending to others' needs." I found that scary in its accuracy.

So the real question is not whether or not astrological personalities were accurate but why they were or weren't. People argue about electromagnetic forces and such, and I'm not sure what to believe on that front, but I would think it would have something to do with parenting. It might sound like a weak argument, but there are bound to be correlations in parenting based on the season that pregnancy and birth occur.

I tend to find that zodiac signs most accurately describe a person born closer to the middle of its date range. For example, Virgos are those born between August 23rd and September 22nd. A person born on September 10th would be more likely to display Virgoan traits over someone born on August 24th. Those around August 21, 22, 23, and 24 would probably be a combination of Leo and Virgo traits.

While I can make the ambiguous argument that personality could have something to do with seasonal time of birth, I can't explain why people born on the same date (as in, two people born on January 5th and July 5th) would have anything in common. Seasons are natural; dates of the month are not, especially since not all months have the same number of days. Said about my birth date:

"Being born on this day of the month should help make you a better manager and organizer, but it may also give you a tendency to dominate people a bit. Sincere and honest, you are a serious, hard working individual. Your feeling are likely to seem somewhat repressed at times. Even if it by itself, you are apt to be much more practical, rational, and conscious of details. Your intolerance and insistence on complete accuracy can be irritating to some. "

Also quite true, and of the other people I know born on the same day of the month, this is pretty true. But I have a feeling that this is based on "confirmation bias," or the concept that my dad had introduced. Maybe I believed it because I wanted to.

Is your zodiac sign an accurate description of your personality? Why might astrological signs be pretty accurate?

The Dilemma of Meat

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."

         Pythagoras, mathematician

Over the past few years, I've had a lot of trouble with the concept of eating meat. I love animals and feel quite empathetic toward them. I can't grasp why I spoil my dog and my fish, spending money to make sure that they are happy and healthy, while I eat chicken and pork. Why is one life worth more than another? Why do people feel such a difference between hurting people and hurting animals?

how anyone can harm something this cute is beyond me.

We tend to gloss over that we're eating living things. On the farm, you'd call pigs pigs. At the dinner table, you can it pork. It's a euphemism. I feel like lots of people assume that animals live happy lives until they graciously give their lives for human consumption. Especially after watching "Food Inc.," a documentary about meat production, I couldn't believe how animals were treated, not just in slaughter, but how they are raised. 

For example, chickens are often raised in too-small warehouses in complete darkness which are not kept clean. They are genetically modified to grow bigger than their legs can handle, and they often die because their legs can't support them. Animals like ducks are force-fed from tubes to fatten them up. It's disgusting.

I want to be able to be a vegetarian quite badly. It would fill my life with much less guilt. I'm afraid it would just be too hard for me. I've successfully cut out certain types of meat--I haven't regularly eaten beef in seven years. I just can't figure out a way to get by nutritionally without a little bit of meat. 

Apparently I'm not the only one that feels this way about animals being killed just for humans. Here are some of my favorite vegetarian quotes, with much thanks to this site. 

    "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."

          Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist

    "To a man whose mind is free there is something even more intolerable in the sufferings of animals than in the sufferings of man. For with the latter it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the man who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any man were to refer to it, he would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime."
        Romain Rolland, author, Nobel Prize 1915

    "If a group of beings from another planet were to land on Earth -- beings who considered themselves as superior to you as you feel yourself to be to other animals -- would you concede them the rights over you that you assume over other animals?"
          George Bernard Shaw, playwright, Nobel Prize 1925

    "What is it that should trace the insuperable line? ...The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
        Jeremy Bentham, philosopher

    "In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought."
          Isaac Bashevis Singer, author, Nobel Prize 1978

    "Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty."
    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
          Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel Prize 1921

    "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."
          Abraham Lincoln, 16th U.S. President

    "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."
          Ralph Waldo Emerson, essayist

    "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."
   "What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty."
          Leo Tolstoy author

    "I cannot fish without falling a little in self-respect...always when I have done I feel it would have been better if I had not fished."
          Henry David Thoreau, author

    "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
    "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being."
        Mahatma Gandhi, statesman and philosopher

    "I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't...The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further."
          Mark Twain, author

     "Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
        Thomas Edison, inventor

The Carnival Begins

It's hard to make in introduction to something this broad. This blog is a culmination of a lot of things which I feel responsible for telling you from the start.

Priorities first. My major resolution for the coming year sounds simple: to be happy. Of course that's easier said than done. I just fined Gretchen Rubin's The Happiness Project (correction: I devoured it) and know that I can take steps to change my life without, well, changing my life.

One of the ways I myself do this is by exploring the world around me. I tend to feel limited by concrete mathematics or ideas that are unchangeable. I love to analyze literature, work with living creatures, and explore everything that this world has to offer. Philosophy captivates me. There is nothing as abstract and not set in stone as exploring the very principles of human nature. This is how I tend to learn my history, as results of human nature as opposed to as facts and timelines.

The ideas of the world are not concrete. They never will be. And it is because of this that we see the world through many different lenses. I think of each lens as a different paradigm, or state of thinking. But identifying the paradigms we tend to believe is not enough. Part of the thrill of exploring the world is having paradigm shifts: "A complete change in thinking or belief systems that allows the creation of a new condition previously thought impossible or unacceptable."

One can't have paradigm shifts without open-mindedness. What better place to look for different opinions than the internet? Everyone has one; anyone can publish one. Don't assume this is only talking about politics. I mean ideas surrounding philosophy. Science. Religion. History. Art. All the rest. It's a carnival. A paradigm carnival.

I can't completely predict what will pop up in posts. You see that photo at the top? It's wonderful. I'm not completely sure what to say about it, but I certainly feel the need to share it. I attribute a lot of my searching to the internet, particularly StumbleUpon, because I've found an abundance of opinions and ideas through it. School will also play a part. Based on the things I tend to take note of, I have a feeling that posts will be filled with quotes, photos, questions, opinions, quirky things, creative things, product reviews, humor, writing samples...the list goes on and on.

All in all, I think this blog is an inspiration book of sorts. I often feel overwhelmed by all the amazing things around me, and I know I get a lot out of free-writing about them. Comments are more than welcome; I can't explore open mindedness all by myself. Inspiration books, or whatever you want to call this collection of posts, is a form of self-education and exploration. I love this quote by Jim Rohn: “Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune.” Let the journey begin.