Comes the Inquisitor

"In tribulation he will find his greatest strength and his utmost nobility."

At this point you are asking the obvious questions, but I'm afraid that some things shall have to puzzle you awhile longer.

But I will tell you this story...

I spoke elsewhere of my grandmother. Before she passed away, she was in a persistent vegetative state for many months. I was at a place in my studies where I knew that many people believed that some people had the power to heal others, not as a 'gift' but as a skill/ability. (I was not yet at the place in my studies where I knew that it wasn't always right to heal others.) I had never actually done such a thing myself, or witnessed it, but I believed that if such a skill were possible, then someone with sensitivities like mine should be able to acquire it. (Ah, the hubris of youth.) I had only a hodge-podge of knowledge, and no teacher, but a desperate desire to help my grandmother recover and thereby also to alleviate the suffering of her family who anguished as they watched her persist in this state.

Needless to say, I accomplished nothing. But not for lack of trying whatever haphazard technique I could think of when I was sure no one else was looking.

My grandmother died. At her memorial I was sitting right behind my grandfather, who was sobbing uncontrollably and unabatedly. In a moment of compassion, seeking to comfort him, I put my hand on his back. And I suddenly felt the most overwhelming sense of grief and heartbreak that I had ever felt in my young (and relatively unlived) life. At that same moment, my grandfather stopped crying.

You can say what you want about that experience (and I'm sure you will), but it was highly unlikely that what I felt at that moment was my feeling about my grandmother, to whom I was never particularly close. My grandfather, I later learned, was very much in love with her throughout their married life. Why did he stop crying at that particular moment? No one can say for sure, as he is now dead as well. I was never brave enough to ask him about it.

Perhaps you think I made too much of a simple coincidence, and perhaps I did. Or perhaps it was only the first such experience. Either way, it helped solidify my conviction that we are more connected than we think. My grandfather's suffering, and my perception that I had somehow fixed it, strengthened my need to understand how such a thing might be possible.

Likewise, witnessing what could make a difference in other instances of suffering strengthened my conviction that this research was important. In response to one such instance, I conceived of the idea that certain people might be trained to anchor and protect larger groups of people. (Okay, I had a little help on that one from the world of fiction.) Such an idea does no good if one keeps it to oneself, but without that particular experience I might never have been sufficiently motivated to discuss it or my research publicly (or semi-publicly, in an anonymous blog). Not that I've done a lot of that, as the skeptic rhetoric gets really tiring. (If you hadn't made it interesting, we wouldn't be here.) And it appears that I am not the only one who has thought of such a thing. (Ethical considerations of that proposal discussed here.)

At this point you probably think that I am rabidly delusional. :) I would be rabidly delusional if I thought that I could ever tell this story to a group of scientists/skeptics and be believed and/or presumed sane. (Not playing high-stakes poker.) But if you want to know why I'm here and how I was/am able to put so much time and energy into what I've studied, it's because my experiences have been powerful enough (to me) to make me believe that it is better to understand whatever 'forces' make such things possible than it is to languish in ignorance.

The Genesis of Ethics

"I used to roll the dice,
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes."

Sometimes, the only way you can play high-stakes poker is to pretend that you're not playing high-stakes poker. Ditto with living in 5 dimensions. What do you do when something bad happens? Who do you blame? What do you do when something good happens? How do you avoid a God-complex?

So by now you've figured out that I live somewhere between the 4-dimensional worldmap that I grew up in, and the 5-dimensional worldmap that I've created. The idea of 5 dimensions and its implications still freak me out every once in awhile. And when I think of what other people might do from thinking this way... [Brief pause for stress-induced eating.]

Frankly, I don't consider the 5-dimensional landscape to be complete yet, because it doesn't deal definitively with the very important question of the nature of multiple-observer interactions. More specifically, I have not resolved to my satisfaction the question of whether I am isolated from all other observers or whether I am anchored to and by other observers. I strongly suspect and believe in the latter, but let's discuss...

When something horrible happens, I can often see how I came to that universe/outcome in the same way as I can identify the forces that move me among much smaller and less significant sets of outcomes. I may not have wished for/intended others to suffer, but once sufficiently removed from the event, I sometimes believe that I can understand why I witnessed it. Even personal suffering can be viewed this way, once one is sufficiently removed from the suffering. (Not a popular idea. Don't discuss it with suffering friends.)

In the same way, say something horrible is about to happen, and the horrible outcome seems so inevitable that statements are being made to the effect that "only divine intervention can save us now." If I am able to find the universe where said outcome does not happen, I can believe neither that I am 'divine', nor that I have 'intervened'. I can believe that I (in the aspect of myself that is unanchored to/by others) was able to change my trajectory through the multiverse/smear to avoid witnessing said horrible outcome. But I can also believe the following...

Such an event would undoubtedly command the attention of many observers, all of whom would do various forms of praying/wishing/thinking about the outcome. Assuming that all of these mental actions contribute to a cumulative bias-towards-outcome to which we are all anchored to the extent that we observe the outcome, then the thoughts of each individual are significant. Determining the most significant observer will always be close-to-impossible, as the influence of observers/observations from the future will not be known until later. (This involves the idea of retrocausality, for which I think there is much evidence and with which I believe I have had some personal experience. Hell, I can believe that certain elements of this [gesturing to my blogs] experience may only be explainable in terms of the significance that they had/will have at some point in the future. Ordinary 'signals' just aren't that strong - ever. But don't let that go to your head or freak you out. This isn't high-stakes poker. ;)

There has never been an event that I have experienced for which I seek to 'blame' any other observers. Frankly, I think that if you aren't willing to accept sole responsibility for everything that you experience, you will never truly live in 5 dimensions. In many ways, I can see my thoughts and experiences as a closed set wherein all the events explain each other without resorting to data from other observers.

However, there are experiences that have been both powerful and humbling, which convince me that other observers do exist. And yes, I'm referring to ESP-type experiences. I'm not sure that I would want (or should have) the capacity to select outcomes without the vulnerability of feeling the effect that that change has upon others. The nature of those experiences was quite important in determining how I currently think and behave, ethically speaking. I've done things in the past that, given my current ethical perspective, make me cringe. And I know enough about human nature to realize that everyone who comes into this way of thinking will have to test these things for themselves, which makes me reluctant to be too specific about what to do to achieve a specific outcome.

So here I sit - caught somewhere between 'it's all me' and 'it's all of us together'. I hope that I am currently using the best of both perspectives to guide my actions. If there is an ethical code for living in 5 dimensions, I would say that I am only beginning to see what it might be. Mostly though, what I've discovered is that the old wisdom about what is right and wrong is wisdom for a reason.

And now I'm going to go pretend that I didn't just say all that.

The Darkness that Comes Before

"Miracles to the unbelieving create awe, and sometimes obedience for a little space; then they are forgotten. They are reasoned away and man forgets... or else he becomes superstitious and seeks after signs to prove and to test..."

Every time I hear skeptics whine (you heard me, I said it) that there is no good controlled laboratory evidence for psi phenomena (you know, mind-reading, and so on), I roll my eyes. (Read the literature. Seriously.) Then I wonder what would happen if a 'psychic' gave a skeptic a personal demonstration/ass-kicking. Would the skeptic have the courage to embrace/acknowledge the experience?

Evidence suggests that the answer is 'no'. (Although some skeptics will change their responses if they think they will get something in so doing. I hate lying.)

"But controlled replication is the hallmark of science!" No - logic applied to experience to form and test hypotheses is the hallmark of science. If the evidence indicates that psi exists in everyday experience, yet fades under laboratory conditions, the correct question to ask is WHY does it fade under laboratory conditions? Not surprisingly, that question HAS been asked by parapsychological researchers. (Read the literature. Seriously. If I cared at this point, I'd give you a reference. I suspect though that you only feign ignorance to see what kind of a response you can get. See previous comment.)

I respect the role of the skeptic, I really do. It's just so damn hard to find a good one. (If you were really a good skeptic, you would do a controlled lab test with the psychic. ESP is a fairly significant issue (hell, you people keep writing about it) and one that not going to go away until science can explain the experience of ESP in one way or another. But if we can't trust you to tell the truth about what happened in the experiment... You see how that works? No pressure though. You have more important things to think about. Would've been fun though.)

Yes, there's a part of me that knows that I shouldn't care about 'proving' anything. There's plenty of data out there that supports the existence of psi. One more set of data wouldn't change anything. What's (mostly) missing is a model that explains psi results and makes testable predictions. But then you're not dealing with an enlightened being; you're dealing with a human being who is competitive and likes to win. [And at this point my computer froze and I had to unplug it from the wall. No joke. I spend several minutes wondering whether this was a sign from the universe reminding me that I really do know better. Really, I do.]

I spent all day assessing where, how, if, and to whom I wanted to keep communicating about my experiences and my ideas. (My job is boring and leaves me plenty of time for obsessive thought.) In the end, I conclude this - for the person I used to be, who desperately wanted information and not New-Age mumbo-jumbo, and who wanted to know that she was not alone in what she was experiencing... For that person, I'll leave a searchable record of my experiences and thoughts, freely accessible on the Internet. For now.

And I'll write some damn good science fiction. (A girl's gotta eat. ;)

The Quest for a Secular Morality

"We humans need a moral compass, we need guidance—now more than ever. The world is an astoundingly complex place, and even learning the basic science necessary to have a broad understanding of how the world functions is a life’s achievement. We can’t expect each and every individual to be a lantern unto themselves when it will ultimately lead to each of us clumsily reinventing the wheel or a regression into empty hedonism." - IEET guest post from Tim Dean

The irony of that statement is that Dean is suggesting that a system of guidance be developed and taught to those who are not educated or 'progressive' enough to reach those conclusions on their own, while explicitly rejecting religion as a source of moral values. He is convinced that "we need a moral compass", and that such a system "can serve as a replacement for religion in our society."

Umm... I think we call attempts to indoctrinate us with a specific code of morality by virtue of superior authority 'religion'. ;)

Religion isn't unacceptable because involves a hypothetical divine being. It is unacceptable if it requires that the individual subjugate his/her own experience and reason to 'authority' to the detriment of self and others. It is unacceptable if it will perpetuate ignorance in the face of contradictory evidence in order to maintain its structural integrity, to the detriment of self and others. It is unacceptable if it causes more harm than good.

Should we really be questing for the comprehensive code of secular morality to establish how we should treat each other and why? Do we know enough now about the nature of consciousness and the range of conscious experience that we can feel comfortable making definitive statements about what it means to be human? If it is right to reject all of the contents of religion as Dean suggests - "religion is no longer suitable as a moral compass in the modern world" - because you do not like how some of them are used to reason about gene therapy and artificial intelligence, is it any more right to assume a counter-posture that reveres the experience and ideology of a select minority of humans - namely, certain scientists and philosophers?

If your objective in creating a secular morality is to enhance the authority of science, then you will be creating something just as flawed and perhaps more flawed than the existing moral guidance that is available from religion. Science has not explained what we are as conscious beings, and how all of our experiences arise. Science, as an authoritative explanation for the why of things, may provide a better accounting of our empirical knowledge than its religious counterpart, but the evil of religion is not in the nature of the explanation, but in how it is taught and applied. Unquestioning adherence to the teachings is where we get into trouble with religion, and such adherence is only found when there are claims of superior authority. Are we justified in assuming that science progresses, and that a code of secular morality grounded in scientific knowledge will automatically adapt as well? What happens when scientific theories and/or data conflict? To whose authority do we appeal then?

[Pause for rational exercise: If a child has cancer, and the parents turn to faith-healing to the exclusion of chemo or radiation, and the child dies, we vilify the parents as criminally negligent. However if a child has cancer, and the parents turn to chemo and radiation to the exclusion of faith-healing, and the child dies, we don't question their rationality. Empirical data suggests that all of the proposed treatment options work some of the time, so why is one case of blind adherence to dogma acceptable while the other isn't?]

If the true objective of a quest for secular morality is to increase moral behavior, and we can agree that unjustified appeals to authority to the detriment of human beings are the primary reasons to reject existing religious systems of moral guidance, what system or code of moral 'guidance' can be created that will be any better, yet free of the same problems?

Perhaps the place to start isn't in worrying about is inherently right or wrong. Perhaps we need to back up a step and reinforce that, right or wrong, a person should accept responsibility for his or her own actions. As members of society, we may need to accept other responsibilities as well (such as responsibility for the welfare of those in our care, etc.), but our fundamental responsibility is to not seek to attribute blame elsewhere for our circumstances or actions. No 'the devil made me do it', 'the drugs made me do it', 'peer pressure made me do it', etc. Society may conclude that others maliciously manipulated your behavior or failed in their duty to you, but you are not allowed to seek to absolve yourself of responsibility for your actions in that way.

I'd like to think that such a guiding ethical principle would promote critical thinking. If there is no one to blame but you, do you not bear the responsibility of educating yourself to the best of your abilities? Are you not forced to think about the potential consequences of your actions that much more carefully? Would a society governed by this principle exist in a better state of moral/ethical equilibrium? Would it have been enough to have prevented this, or is fear of authority and/or retribution the only thing strong enough to do that?

This merits additional thought.

The Tipping Point

"You thought, as a boy, that a mage is one who can do anything. So I thought, once. So did we all. And the truth is that as a man's real power grows and his knowledge widens, ever the way he can follow grows narrower: until at last he chooses nothing, but does only and wholly what he must do..."

"When a mystic has merged with God, in the extreme ecstasy of divine union, all physical rules give way. 'What do you want me to do now?' she asks her God. 'Where do I go now?'"

Learned a new word the other day - 'anti-mystic'. One presumes that such a word is intended to be synonymous with 'rationalist', though a google search isn't helpful in clarifying the etymology of the term. I only mention this because it was among the confluence of events that sparked this post.

Through this confluence of events, I have found myself wondering about one of the more obscure elements of mysticism and magick lore - the idea of surrendering one's Will to something greater. In mysticism, the 'greater' is presumed to be 'Divine Will', although how a single experience prompts such an urge to surrender to another being (however Divine) is puzzling when viewed only through a remote and analytical lens. In magick, the 'greater' is sometimes referred to as the 'Balance' or 'Pattern' of things, or one's 'True Will'. Again, ambiguous terms which presumably makes sense to those who have experienced them.

The more mundane among us might wonder if we don't all reach a point in our experience wherein the world ceases to exist for us, and we begin to exist for the world. Or perhaps we wonder whether all of us reach a tipping point in our experience wherein our future course of actions cannot be significantly altered. Those of us who happen to be reading about time might wonder how a bi-directional temporal flow of influence might work into these ideas. The truly eccentric among us wonder about how multiple-observer dynamics might be related to such notions. ;)

If the experience of 'surrender' is common to both advanced mystics and magick practitioners, then it begs the question - is there a level of awareness that we can reach (independent of context) which shows us something that suggests that such a response is appropriate? What larger truth is being glimpsed (or hallucinated) by those who talk about this experience of 'surrender'?

What we are willing to label that which prompts 'surrender' is apparently worth fighting about to those whose agenda prefers one term over another, which invokes in any decision regarding the labelling of such a 'larger reality' an element of controversy.

If there is a 'Pattern' to be aware of, then perhaps it is the pattern that we create - we, the web of observers who anchor each other and our conception of reality. Perhaps 'surrender' is an act of withdrawing one's own petty ego from the mix (as much as is possible) and refusing to impose one's Will upon others from egotistical motivations. This still leaves open the question of why such a 'surrender' is an appropriate response. What purpose is served, and what forces are at work if one's actions are purportedly driven by an awareness of this 'greater' purpose/pattern? What does one hope to better by such an act of 'surrender'? Him/Herself? The world at large? And how is such a thing determined to have been accomplished by one so that it may be advocated to another?

Or is the notion of 'surrendering' nothing more than an abdication of choice and responsibility for one's actions, as one might imagine an 'anti-mystic' would claim? Perhaps it comes from a recognition of the futility and meaninglessness of many of our ordinary struggles? Perhaps the reward is in the pleasure of ceasing to struggle?

Oi, the head hurts. I surrender to this puzzle. (For now.)

The Probable Future

"Without a map of our natural and social world - a picture of the world and of one's place in it that is structured and has inner cohesion - human beings would be confused and unable to act purposefully and consistently, for there would be no way of orienting oneself, of finding a fixed point that permits one to organize all the impressions that impinge upon each individual."

I came across this quote the other day while I was writing something else. Several days later I'm still thinking about it. Needs must I blog, so that the thoughts will go away.

Believe it or not, I've never attempted to comprehensively describe how my world-map has changed as a result of thinking in 5-dimensions. A world-map, as described in the above quote, contains more than one's understanding of the laws of physical phenomena. It also contains orienting values and overarching goals that one can access when trying to determine a course of action. It's that 'values and goals' part that I haven't really tackled yet. This is partly because when you assert the primacy of a particular set of values or goals, you risk being seen as less objective or impartial than you should be when dealing with matters of science.

So be it. What I have done was never really objective science as much as it was a mapping of my subjective internal experiences. If that leads to a theory that can some day be validated by objective data, my hopes will have been realized. If not, then this is just more fodder for my science-fiction writing career. ;)

But back to values and goals... I'll put down what I can, with no illusions that I can be completely objective about what guides or motivates me.

I think the most noticeable differences in my world-map reflect the differences in the way I see time. If the past is not fixed, and/or one can select a universe that reflects specific conditions from the past, then the past ceases to be as big of a source of worry or concern. Similarly, if the future is a set of possible outcomes (and there's always a set), then you are never worrying about the future. You are only worrying about the probable future. More than anything, it is what is happening now that matters. In this particular 5-dimensional perspective, what's happening now - including what's happening only in your head - is altering (however slightly) the probabilities associated with each future outcome.

Of course the past can still be used to make useful predictions about the future, and we couldn't function without doing so, but I've come to realize that using a specific event from the past to make a decision about an action now is not as useful as assessing the current situation in light of multiple interpretations of its relationship to the past. (Wow, that was a long sentence, and a somewhat convoluted thought...) Considering multiple interpretations of the relationship between past and present circumstances, and deciding how to act upon such an option-space of relationships, will ultimately bring out your optimistic or pessimistic tendencies. Both tendencies have functionality in determining outcome states, and you'll figure these out as you explore a 5-dimensional perspective.

From the same stories I just cited, you can see where the value status of material things changes in 5 dimensions. If a pizza, book, or on-sale dress is only a universe away, and I know how to get to that universe at any time, then the acquisition of that item now is only valuable if it fills a specific need that I have now. Don't get me wrong - I have hundreds of books waiting to be read. I hoard them against a great catastrophe wherein I might die of boredom. I do not claim to be the living embodiment of the set of values that I can articulate. But I do think that my values have generally shifted away from 'objects for status' and 'objects as a hedge against the future and/or link to the past', and towards 'objects for immediate use'. (Except for the books again. People I respect generally read a lot of books and have a lot of books. I can't tell you that possessing books is not, for me, in some way about status.)

Right now I'm starting to feel slightly ridiculous for writing this post. I'll shift to 'goals' for a moment to see if that helps. My motivations to do things (other than fulfill basic needs) are largely intrinsic. Perhaps they always were, or perhaps this reflects my changed perception of the nature of external motivators. Or, if you want to plumb the depths of psychology even further, you can suggest that I have a need for control (or the illusion of control) that underlies both my theory of 5 dimensions and my perception that I am intrinsically-motivated. ;)

Either way, I have goals that reflect the desire for self-mastery. Selecting an outcome requires the ability to master thoughts, emotions, and expectations. And while moment-to-moment experience is largely not a factor of conscious selection, thoughts and emotions set the general 'direction' of your trajectory (if you will permit me to sound excessively NewAge-y and non-scientific for just a moment), so mastering them can have a broader impact on the quality of the outcomes that you experience. Mastery of thought and emotion is also valuable in many other (more mundane) aspects of daily life, including interpersonal relationships and overall state of health, so it's worth your time, even if you think a 5-dimensional perspective is so much mushroom fertilizer. ;)

My other overarching goal is to learn. As biological organisms, we seem to be incapable of not learning, where learning is defined as 'modification with experience.' Perhaps it's my scholar-status bias again that makes me want to conclude that learning is the ultimate purpose, and should therefore be embraced as an overarching goal. Then again, since we can't avoid learning at its most basic level, perhaps I can be permitted a modicum of leeway in my subjective perception of its importance. ;)

Three paragraphs later and I'm still feeling as though this whole endeavor has overtones of 'pompous', so I think I'll stop for now. Until the next time I am possessed by thoughts I must explore, namaste.

Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives

"In every journey, the traveller must ask 'Was the right path taken?'... Those who watch the track too closely often fail to see where the path leads them."

Yesterday, in a moment of irritation, I chose the universe where the answer to a question was 'No' instead of 'Yes'. I did it consciously, because I knew that the answer was likely to be 'Yes', and I didn't want to deal with what followed a 'Yes' answer.

In your 4-dimensional world, you don't believe that such a thing is possible, and therefore I did nothing wrong. Run along then.

In a 5-dimensional world, there are questions... Did I simply alter my own trajectory through the smear/multiverse by steering myself towards the outcome I wanted? Or did my actions have a substantive effect on the other party?

If I simply altered my own trajectory, then, again, I have done nothing wrong. My choice to select that particular outcome may or may not impact my subsequent ability to make similar choices, but the morality of my decision to choose an outcome is a non-issue by any traditional code of right and wrong, as my decision did not affect someone else.

However, if I argue that the essence of observers and their observations is somehow linked together, and consensus reality reflects a summing together of those influences, then I must accept that my decision did affect someone else, and we then face a myriad of questions as to the morality of my action.

Arguing from this perspective assumes that every observer of an outcome exerts some influence on the outcome that is selected, though perhaps this influence is unequally distributed among the observers. If all observers remain unaware of their ability to influence the outcome, then again, no question of morality exists, as no one is intentionally acting on this knowledge. If one or more of the observers is aware and can make a conscious attempt to influence the outcome (and we're only discussing a non-local influence right now), then a question of relative power arises. An aware observer may or may not be the strongest agent in the selection of a particular outcome. But their awareness of their ability to consciously act puts an additional burden of responsibility upon them when faced with an opportunity to act.

By what ethics should an aware observer be bound when consciously acting to select a particular outcome? I touched on this briefly in earlier writings, but I always intended to explore the foundations of that ethic further, as it seems to come from people who have the most experience in consciously selecting outcomes. Though not explicitly stated in that particular ethical principle, the consensus seems to be that acting to suppress another person's free will harms that person, and therefore should be avoided.

How does this relate to my relative ability to select an outcome? As an aware observer who can, hypothetically, exercise a stronger influence upon the selection of the final state/outcome, am I admonished to refrain from doing so because my influence may suppress that of another person? Are we justified in equating the influence that a particular observer brings to bear on the process of state selection with his/her will?

That's an important question that warrants further exploration.