Language, Self, & the Timeless Garden

When it comes to curiosity, nothing on earth beats human beings. A dog might sniff at a foreign object curiously but he is not likely to ponder his origins, place in the cosmos, or destiny; nor is he likely to question the morality of his actions or dwell on the topic of his inevitable death.

A dog may answer to his name, come when you call him, sit on command, and so on, but these are the results of classical conditioning and should not the confused with free-will. Animals operate primarily on instinct. Biological urges dictate their actions. They are slaves to their bodies and as such are deprived of free-will as we know it.

Were it not for a single innovation developed in our distant past we too would be at the mercy of our instincts and biological needs. We would still be wandering in small groups beneath the open sky, barely clinging to survival. This innovation allowed us to codify thoughts and pieces of the external world and share them with others easily and accurately. Its discovery triggered the intellectual and technological revolution which continues to drive human progress forward to this very day.

The emergence of the self, that is the sense of "I" imbued in each one of us, would not have occurred without this innovation. And since self-awareness is the only thing that allows us to consciously override our biological urges in favour of a higher purpose or common goal, we should be thankful for this crucial development.

This all-important innovation, if you haven't already guessed, is language. Without language there are no laws to hold complex societies together; without complex societies there is no science, no history, no philosophy, and no individual.

Think about it. No, literally think about it. You hear that little voice in your mind? It wouldn't exist without language. Rational thought, creativity, ingenuity, and curiosity are all descendants of language, for how can you question something without language? How can you study the world, learn from it, and transmit your findings to subsequent generations without words? Before language and the emergence of the self, we were no different from the dog who eats another dog's shit despite his master's obvious displeasure.

Without language, we would be incapable of pondering the future. We'd be shackled to the present, quelling desire after desire after desire until our unforeseen demise.

The emergence of the Self serves as the foundation of all subsequent human accomplishments. It should be no surprise that this pivotal moment, whenever and wherever it actually took place, has been immortalized in various myths and religions. All around the world, in different regions and eras, we find myths detailing this moment of self-realization.

The first people to develop a sense of self and the ability to ponder the mysteries of the cosmos were stepping out of a timeless past. Good, evil, life, death, past, present, and future are all concepts that find no foothold in the pre-self world. These concepts cannot exist without a conscious observer; as a result, they are unique to the human psyche, their existence a by-product of language and the emergence of the self.

Perhaps the best-known mythological account of this crucial moment, this stepping out of transcendence into the realm of dualities, is found in the Old Testament book of Genesis. Now when taken literally, Genesis as a whole and the story of the Garden of Eden in particular crumble in the face of critical thought; but interpreted symbolically, the story of Eden appears to commemorate the moment in which we became aware, not only of ourselves as individuals but also of mortality and morality.

I assume you're all familiar with the story. God creates Adam and Eve and places them in the Garden of Eden where they are invited to eat from all but one tree. And God says, "But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die." Note the name of this forbidden tree. Isn't it curious that the knowledge of good and bad should cause Adam and Eve to "certainly die?"

As I said, the Garden narrative is neither unique nor logical. It's rife with contradictions and fallacies. Read symbolically though, the answer becomes obvious: before eating from the tree, Adam and Eve were blissfully ignorant of duality. They knew neither good nor evil, life nor death. They wandered in the nude, as animals do, and gave zero fucks.

The lesson as I see it is that, before language and self-awareness, we were as Adam and Eve in the garden: immortal, but only in our ignorance of death; perfect, but only in our ignorance of sin. We were free to do as we pleased but lacked free-will in any sense of the word. Enslaved by our biological urges, we gave no thought to matters of morality, no credence to questions of origin and purpose.

Free-will, tied inextricably to the sense of "I," only appeared after we tasted the forbidden fruit and our awareness of self and duality came only after we left the garden. Without options to choose from, one cannot truly know free-will, and without duality there are no options, only the needs of your meat-vehicle.

Watch the Discovery channel or Oasis HD for an hour and you will quickly realize that the animal kingdom is amoral. Predators do not pause to question whether their treatment of prey is ethical. They do not discuss what happens after death or worship some unseen creator. They obey their biology, just as humans did before they had reason to do otherwise.

The ability to label, categorize, symbolize, and mythologize distinguishes us from the beasts of the field. Language gave rise to the self; the self, in turn, forced us to question the nature of reality; and lastly, these queries birthed all that we see and know today.

This leads me to believe that there indeed exists a higher power, a divine creator. This highest power is not out there watching us from some hidden vantage point; it is inside each one of us. It is constantly creating and recreating the world before our very eyes, spurring discoveries, forging ideologies, and dishing out revelations.

All praise the scumbag brain. Amen.

/rant over

Mysterious Machine, Part 2

The three most popular spokesmen say that the others got it all wrong, that there's only one person responsible for the mysterious machine. They call him the Great Machinist and apparently he made us to look after the machine, tune it up, maintain it, and keep it running smoothly.

"So we all work for the Great Machinist?"

You got it! 

The three spokesmen disagree on pretty much everything else. They each round up their supporters for a pep talk. Don't listen to those other clowns. They're lying about the GM (Great Machinist) but I know the real truth. Oh and by the way, the GM wanted me to give you guys some new rules.

Don't eat this. Don't touch that. Don't work on this day. When you give thanks to the GM (which you should be doing every day) make sure you do it this way. Don't wear this. Don't eat that either.  

And most importantly, don't hoard money. You can't take it with you when you die! Give it to the GM instead.

Most people do as they're told. The machine is too complex and dangerous to ignore. It still lashes out at us regularly, killing and maiming without remorse. Which is weird because according to the spokesmen the GM really loves us. He has a strange way of showing it.

It's not for us to question how the machine works.

We disagree. We think it's precisely our duty to figure out the machine. That's why we climb the fence every night. Equipped with flashlights, measuring tapes, and notepads, we study the machine obsessively. We stare at the little pieces hanging above our heads and track their movements. We scrutinize the machine's smallest components beneath microscopes, and every time we think we've identified the machine's most basic building-block someone comes along with a bigger microscope and sends us back to the drawing board. Every component is made up of smaller parts, and those parts are made of smaller parts, and those parts...

You get the point.

Even those who do as they're told and leave the machine alone make startling discoveries. They study the human body and find that people, like the machine, are made up of various parts. Different organs serve different functions; they pump oxygen into the blood, regulate digestion, collect and organize data, etc.

"I am the sum of my parts, the culmination of systems and organs interacting in various ways. I am a meat machine."

And what happens when these meat-machines interact with each other? They become components in a greater whole, a system, a network of limbs and minds. Doesn't it sound like we're pieces of the mysterious machine too?

Hey fuckers! You're not messing with the machine, are you? I thought I told you only the chosen ones can do that. The spokesmen and their cronies lock us up, set us on fire, or throw big rocks at us. But it's too late. We've hit the truth on the head. We press ahead, fueled by curiosity, pride, certainty.


By now we can pry the machine open. We peer inside and guess what? There's no Great Machinist, just tiny gears and gyres engaged in a complex dance. Every piece of this wondrous device appears to be governed by basic laws, mechanistic rules that translate into mathematical formulas.


"See! There's no GM in there."

Liars! The GM works in mysterious ways. You just can't see him, that's all.

***

Our universe is a mysterious machine whose ultimate function is unknown. Maybe it doesn't have a purpose. Maybe it just is. We may never know the answer but there are plenty of things we do know about it.

The universe has a structure. Its various parts--stars, black holes, planets, and interstellar debris-- interact with a set of mechanistic laws to create solar systems, galaxies, clusters, and super-clusters.

I say mechanistic because they are reliable and constant. Even our ancient ancestors could predict the movement of the stars with great accuracy, all without advanced computers or telescopes. Using these laws as our guide we have been able to determine the speed of light, the distance between far-fetched stars, the age of our universe, and much more. Studying this mysterious machine of ours has yielded all that you see around you today: skyscrapers, smartphones, space-shuttles, satellites, cars, etc. 

If the universe truly is a giant machine, what does that make us? What role can our species play in such a massive cosmological system? For now, a very minor one. Our interactions are limited to a tiny piece of the machine: earth.

Our planet is also the sum of its parts. Oceans, continents, plant-life, atmosphere, plate tectonics, weather patterns, the animal kingdom, and the human race are all interconnected. It is only humans, upon gaining self-awareness, who think themselves as separate from the whole. We explain our place in the universe by means of  anthropomorphism when in truth no such explanation is required.

Mother Earth birthed us in her watery womb and Father Evolution did the rest. We are made from the same building blocks as everything else in the universe. We aren't separate or distinct in any way. Believing that the universe was made especially for us, that we have a right to subjugate and abuse our planet, is a disastrous fallacy that could very well lead to our annihilation.

From the sub-atomic to the macro-cosmic, everything operates in an orderly fashion. All matter is arranged in a neat hierarchy. Everything is made up of the same basic building blocks and underlying those there is a set of quantum coding not unlike the 1's and 0's of computer programming.

Humanity is the sum of its parts. That's you and me, my friends. In order for a machine to operate properly, the parts must work in unison and harmony. Your car's function--to get you from point A to point B quickly and safely--is greatly hindered by a blown tire or broken fan-belt.

Likewise, how can we expect to thrive and evolve beyond this pale blue dot if we're all working against each other or worse, against the planet which houses our species?

Exploitation serves the few while cooperation serves the many. Don't let the spokesmen--be they religious, political, corporate, or media--lead you astray. We're all connected, pieces of the universe trying to interpret itself.

The sooner we come to grips with that, the better.

Mysterious Machine Part 1

When we discover the machine most of it is buried and hidden from sight. The piece we see is just the tip of the iceberg, a tiny fraction of the whole, but even that is enough to incite awe and wonder in our hearts. It's a thing of beauty, a gigantic piece of art, a device so complex and magnificent it stops us dead in our tracks. 

We circle the exposed portion of the machine cautiously, studying its moving parts. There are countless pieces in all shapes and sizes and they interact together in strange ways. Some of the pieces come together and produce new components; other pieces consume lesser parts, assimilating them into their own circuitry. Some parts are stationary. Others move but appear to serve no purpose whatsoever. 

It isn't long before we start asking ourselves questions. Where did the device come from? Who built it and why? What is its purpose or function? How does it work? How do the parts move and function  without help? 

Crowds gather around to marvel at the machine. This one guy steps forward brimming with confidence and he rolls his eyes at our questions. Things don't just move of their own accord, you morons! There's clearly people hiding inside the machine and moving the pieces. And since they know how it works, they must've built it, too!

We label the myriad parts, record their movements and interactions, and note their function. Some parts move with regularity, allowing us to keep track of time. Other parts yield food and drink at regular intervals. There are even pieces that can be manipulated to produce resources for making tools and clothes!

As more and more people poke and prod at the machine it begins to reveal a sinister side. It produces fire and lightning, striking down unlucky ones. It acts without prompting, injuring and killing for no apparent reason. One time it opens up and swallows this poor lady whole.

We're scared of the machine now but we're too intrigued and dependent on its gifts to leave it alone. We keep tinkering, ignoring the risks. 
 

The arrogant know-it-all shows up again. This time he claims that the PIM (people inside the machine) chose him to be their spokesman. We ask the spokesman why the machine has turned against us and he replies like a parent answering a child's annoying question. They want gifts for their hard work. If you don't give them what they want, they’ll keep turning the machine against you.

We start singing, praising, and dancing but the PIM never acknowledge our worship. They want you to build a temple in their name, the spokesman says. We use materials provided by the machine to build a temple. We dedicate it to the PIM and furnish it with all kinds of trinkets. 

The spokesman moves into the temple promptly. The PIM are pleased, he announces. Carry on.

Now people are lining up to ask the spokesman questions. 

"Where did the PIM come from?"

They didn't come from anywhere. They've always been here.

"Why did they make the machine?"

Because they were bored and wanted to make something awesome. Next!

"Where do we come from?"

The spokesman pauses. "The PIM made us so that someone might use their machine."

"Why does the machine harm us sometimes?"

The machine only hurts you when you make the PIM angry. As long as you do what they ask, the machine will continue to serve us.

"How do we know what the PIM want with us?"

The spokesman smiles. I'll tell you what they want, that's how.

Most people are content with the spokesman's answers. They give up tinkering with the mysterious machine and start doing the spokesman's bidding.

Some of us can't help ourselves. The spokesman might be right or he might be wrong. Why take his word for it when the machine is right there for us to see and touch and study? We keep experimenting, pulling levers and flipping switches. In doing so we learn more about the machine and develop better tools with which to study it. 

The more we learn about the machine and its myriad parts, the better we get at developing new tools. We start to dig around the machine, discovering new parts and pieces. We take better and better measurements of it. We compare notes with others who have studied the machine. 

As we learn more about the machine we realize we don't really understand the machine at all. It's bigger than we imagined, bigger than we can imagine. Some start doubting the spokesman and his story about the PIM. How is it that the PIM have always been here? We all come from somewhere.

And if the PIM do exist and they're smart and powerful enough to make this wondrous and mysterious machine, why can't they come out and explain how it works to us directly? Why did they pick this one guy as their spokesman? Seems like a pretty silly way to do things, which is weird because it the PIM supposedly built this amazing device capable of miraculous things.

A brave few start to doubt the PIM's existence. "What if the machine works all by itself through some unknown mechanism or power-source? Sure, that doesn't explain who made the machine, but then again why does the machine require a maker? Maybe the machine is the ultimate maker. Maybe its function is to create and destroy."

"Maybe the machine made itself. Maybe it is constantly building and rebuilding, building and rebuilding, endlessly and forever."

"Wait. What if the machine made us?"

"If that's the case then we're no different from the other components, parts, and pieces we have been studying. We're just another cog in the wheel, another set of gears interacting with each other and the myriad parts in strange and wonderful ways!"

Blasphemy! says the spokesman. You wouldn't expect a watch to make itself, would you? 

By now the spokesman has lost some of his prestige. Dozens of other spokesmen have risen from the rank and file, each one claiming to have a direct line to whoever or whatever made the machine. Each one provides a different explanation about the machine's purpose, gathering his own set of followers.

These new spokesmen build a fence around the machine. The machine is sacred, a gift from the Makers, they announce. Only the chosen ones may study and interpret the machine's functions. Anyone else who dares approach the machine will be shot. Now get back to work!

Most people listen but there's one or two of us who can't leave the machine alone. It's captured our imagination and promises to reveal mind-blowing secrets if we just keep messing with it. 

At night, when everyone is asleep, we climb the fences. We keep digging, noting, and experimenting.

What good is a life of lies, anyway? Better death and truth, we say.

To be continued...

 

Pointless Debate

Imagine two people having a heated argument across the span of the Grand Canyon. They can barely hear each other but that doesn't stop them from shouting until their faces turn blue. Each side believes it is presenting irrefutable evidence and after each exchange the debaters turn to their followers and claim to have scored a decisive win despite having no proof that the other side has heard its point, let alone changed its mind.

When I first heard that Bill Nye was going to engage Ken Ham in a public debate entitled "Evolution vs. Creationism" I immediate thought to myself: why? Why organize such an event? Don't people have better things to do than watch who can beat his head against the wall the hardest? Aren't there bigger fish to fry or more important things to focus on?

I'm assuming you all know Bill Nye the Science Guy and which side of the debate he represented. Ken Ham, on the other hand, is a Young Earth Creationist who founded a website called Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum in Cincinnati. Young Earth Creationists like Ken believe that the earth was created in seven twenty-four hour days by an all-powerful God, just as the book of Genesis proclaims, around 6,000 years ago.

Meanwhile the vast majority of geologists agree that the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old.

That's a difference of 4,539,994,000 years, people! Even someone who knows nothing else about the debate can see that the two sides must employ radically different methods for discerning the planet's age. The difference between these two estimates is a perfect representation of the chasm that stands between atheists and theists. It's as if each side is arguing from across the Grand Canyon. How can either side ever hope to convince the other? It's not like they're off by a few thousand years, or even a few million years. They disagree by a measure of billions.

I'd call it an irreconcilable difference.

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and vehement anti-theist, has gone on record saying that scientists shouldn't publicly debate Young Earth Creationists and I completely agree with him. These public debates serve no purpose. Neither side will ever admit defeat, and here's why:

No, I'm not making this up. Those were their real answers.

Ken Ham's answer is self-explanatory: even if scientists were somehow able to disprove the existence of God conclusively or pinpoint the age of the planet or universe to a high degree of accuracy, Ken would be unperturbed. This admission should make him ineligible for any debate on the topic of creationism versus evolution.  His view--and that of many theists, though thankfully not the majority--is that the Bible is the uncorrupted word of the supreme creator of the universe and the only document humanity needs in order to successfully navigate life.

Good luck changing that dude's mind, Bill Nye. Maybe bring Paul Zaloom with you next time, bro.

I always preferred Beakman's World myself.

On the other hand, Nye's answer also poses a problem because, barring a radical rewriting of basic geology, it's unlikely scientists will ever find evidence for a 6,000 year old earth, meaning nothing can change Nye's mind, either.

The problem lies not with one side or the other but rather in their distinct and incompatible standards of proof. Creationists hold the Bible as the ultimate standard of proof while atheists regard the scientific method as the deciding factor. So long as the Bible contradicts scientific findings these two groups will never agree on the nature of the universe and humanity's role in it.

Agree to disagree once and for all. Stop shouting across the Grand Canyon and try building a bridge instead.

Whether you believe in God or a random universe governed by autonomous mechanistic laws there must be some facts we can all agree on. For instance, we can agree that the earth is beautiful and that it is home to an abundance of life of which humanity is but a tiny sliver. Whether this life and beauty arose via millions of years of evolution or was designed by an all-powerful creator makes no difference for the moment. We must share this earth regardless of our beliefs, so why not make the best of it?

Why not strive to bring unto the earth an era of universal peace, love, and compassion? Isn't God supposed to take care of all the sinners? Just do your thing, believers. No need to impose your beliefs on those who do not share them.

Likewise, atheists need to spend less time worrying about the beliefs of others and more time helping people and repairing the damage we've inflicted on our planet. These are no small tasks. Changes will need to be made at every level of society and as a result we will need all the help we can get. We must stop trolling our potential friends and allies and try to find common ground with those who believe in God.

I understand your frustrations, atheists. Many who call themselves Christians lose sight of Christ's teachings. They hang their racist, misogynistic, sexist, and political views on Old Testament coat-hangers when it is convenient while ignoring scripture that inconveniences their lives. Rather than get angry with our religious brothers and sisters, we should be quoting scripture in order to help them focus on Jesus' teachings. Chief among these is Golden Rule. Second is what Christ described as the two most important commandments of all:

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

 (PS. I watched the first 30 minutes of the Debate before giving up. At a whopping 2.5 hours, it's not something I plan on watching in its entirety any time soon. If you have seen it, feel free to comment. /rant over)

Valentine's Day Rant

I've had more than one friend tell me how lucky I am to have a good relationship with my wife.  And here I thought our marriage was the result of hard work, shared values, and common goals! Implying that luck was the deciding factor belittles reality. We've had more than our share of fights and disagreements. There have been moments when our future together was uncertain.

My wife and I are constantly working on our relationship: that's why it's awesome. If you don't get along with your spouse, you're not the victim of bad luck; you're the victim of poor decision-making.

Think about all the people that ended up in your life without your approval. You're lucky if you get along with your parents, siblings, extended family, or co-workers; lucky because you didn't pick those people, they were chosen for you by circumstances beyond your control.

Barring some cultural tradition, you get to pick your spouse. No one forces you to get married.

You're not lucky if you get along with your friends; you're supposed to. That's the entire point of friendship. You'd never befriend someone who has nothing in common with you, someone who annoys you or who constantly criticizes you. Why would you marry such a person?

Whenever someone tells me about my good fortune I try to explain that luck played a tiny part at most. I try to explain that a successful marriage depends on three basic factors, but I usually get cut short. For someone who is trapped in a bad marriage, the idea that factors beyond pure chance play a part in the success of a marriage implies what I said at the beginning: that they made shitty decisions along the way. They don't want to hear what I have to say.

WELL YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE TODAY, FUCKERS. Today is St. Valentine's Day and you're my hostage. You have to listen to me now!

Behold! The three factors that make or break a relationship.

Ego

By far your worst enemy in all walks of life, the ego is a smooth-talking con artist who convinces you you're something you're not. The ego has good intentions: it works to spare your feelings and keep your self-esteem high. But sometimes it can undermine you. Like an artist paid to draw your portrait, the ego tends to airbrush imperfections while enhancing positive features. Let it get out of control and the portrait ends up looking like a stranger. 

If you don't see yourself as you truly are you're unlikely to see others as they truly are. This makes finding the right person and enjoying a long, healthy relationship very difficult.

Your ego prevents you from admitting fault. It makes you feel more important than you really are. If your ego is running wild, you'll start to put yourself above your marriage. You become a ball-hog, the player who doesn't pass no matter how many opponents are lined up between him and the hoop. 

In a team, there is no room for ego. The players must be ready to put the team ahead of personal wants and needs. 

Your ego will do everything in its power to prevent this.

Kill your ego. That's step one.

Balance

You ever meet that couple? You know the one. The wife works all day, rushes home, cleans up, cooks dinner, and does the dishes while the husband sits at home, "job-hunts," takes naps daily, and doesn't lift a finger around the house. Or maybe you met the husband who works all week, cooks supper every night, and takes extra work on the side while the wife works part-time and spends more than she makes.

These are hypotheticals, of course, extreme examples meant to illustrate a point: relationships in which power, responsibility, and work are unevenly distributed are breeding grounds for resentment and ill-concealed bitterness. Even the most enduring spouse is eventually going to get sick of their free-loading partner. It might take years, but one day the enduring spouse will snap, and then there's no putting the pieces together again.

I'm not saying that all duties and responsibilities should be split 50/50. That's not practical or possible in most cases. We're all blessed with different talents and subject to different circumstances. The key is finding how you can use those talents to make a fair contribution to the team. The closer you get to 50/50, the better.

Communication

Humans are poorly equipped for conveying complex ideas and emotions to other humans. We stand across from each other grimacing, grunting, and gesturing, and we expect to be understood. There are so many nuances, so many ways communication can break down and fail, it's no wonder misunderstandings abound.

I can't count how many times I've sat by while two friends argued angrily, each one saying more or less the exact same thing and not knowing it. I used to step in and clarify these misunderstandings but now I just let it go. Can't keep giving people fish; it's high time they start learning how to fish instead. 

I have a pretty good idea as to why communication is so difficult. Let me give you a hand. There's actually two components to communication: one is conveying information, the other is listening.

What's that, you ask? Listening? 

It means shutting up and trying to decipher what someone else is saying to you. Novel concept, I know. Listening--or active listening, as I call it--involves shutting up the voice inside your head--the one composing your next line of speech or wondering whether there's a new episode of the Walking Dead this Sunday--and really concentrating on the person talking to you. 

There's a serious shortage of listeners out there. If you're going to pay attention, make sure it's to your spouse.

Parting Words

This is an oversimplification, of course. There are other contributing factors to a successful marriage. Shared values, common interests, and sexual compatibility come to mind. Likewise, a bad marriage is the result of more than just bad decisions. A lack of balance and communication are, in my opinion, endemic to failed relationships.

And that ego. What a motherfucker.

As for me, I'd be lying if I didn't say luck played a part in my marriage. I was lucky to meet my wife when I did; lucky that she was attracted to me; lucky she didn't leave me all those times I deserved to be dumped; lucky she said "yes" when I asked her to marry me; and lucky she agreed to have my children. 

The way we get along, on the other hand, isn't a matter of luck. For me, it's actually pretty simple. She's beautiful, funny, smart, generous, functions well on little to no sleep, and is a wonderful mother. I look forward to coming home everyday and putting the kids to sleep so I can hang out with her. We sit around, watch TV, bake, clean, whatever. It doesn't really matter what we do, as long as we're together. She's my best friend.

If you don't feel the same way about your spouse, don't blame your luck. I didn't marry my wife and then discover how well we get along; I married her because of how well we get along. It was a conscious decision and the best one I ever made. 

Love you babe!

And Happy Valentine's Day to the rest of you helpless romantics.

Floods, Comets, and Crustal Displacements, Oh My!

If Charles Hapgood was right about the Piri Reis map, his findings beg a series of questions. Who in the ancient world would've been capable of mapping out the entire globe with such accuracy? What became of this civilization and where are its remnants? And lastly, what could possibly erase nearly all traces of these enigmatic people?

In his dialogues Timaeus and Critias written in 360 BCE, Plato offers the first clue. He tells us that the powerful empire of Atlantis, which controlled many parts of Europe and Africa at the height of its power, succumbed to a terrible cataclysm and sank beneath the waves around 9,600 BCE.

Without corroborative testimony from independent sources Plato's account carries little weight, but what happens when a bunch of myths line up? What are we to think when the legends of various peoples corroborate each other?

Few scholars give credence to the Biblical story of Noah's Ark. A global flood like the one described in Genesis, geologists argue, would leave a distinct mark on our planet and so far this mark hasn't been found. But what if the flood described Genesis is a primitive person's interpretation of real events? What if different parts of the world suffered different calamities? Those who witnessed the upheaval of the seas would describe it as a divinely-inspired flood while those who experienced volcanic eruptions might describe a time of darkness or burning skies or whatever.

Noah's story in Genesis isn't the oldest account of a species-ending flood. That distinction belongs to the Epic of Gilgamesh. Penned in 2,800 BCE, this literary work contains what is likely the "original"  flood narrative of the Middle-East. Its influence on other myths can easily be traced along the unbroken chain of culture from Mesopotamia--the cradle of civilization--to Egypt, Greece, Rome, and then Europe. That flood stories are found among these people, the inheritors of Mesopotamian culture, is unsurprising.

What is surprising is the abundance of flood stories in pre-Colombus America. The Maya, Inca, Aztec, and various Native-American tribes all possessed flood myths long before the Europeans showed up. In fact, European explorers were shocked to find these accounts already well-established among the "savages" and took this as proof of the Bible's authenticity.

Scumbag Nephilim ruining it for the rest of us

Old world and new world flood narratives share more in common than a simple cataclysm. For instance, the author of Genesis claims that giants roamed the earth before the flood; so does the legend of Viracocha in Peru. In the Egyptian flood story, Osiris comes after the waters abate to spread knowledge and civilization to the survivors; in Mexico, the role of civilizer after the time of darkness is filled by Quetzacoatl, the Plumed Serpent.

Remember: these civilizations are separated by a vast ocean. There is no possibility for cross-contamination here.

I don't believe that God flooded our planet as punishment for our misbehaviour. All I'm saying is there are too many similarities between the stories to claim coincidence. Myths and legends, no matter how fantastical, are based to some degree on reality. When dozens of myths and legends across the world tell roughly the same story with many of the same detail one cannot help but wonder whether there is a basis for these stories in reality.

That's what Charles Hapgood wanted to know. He tried to imagine what might cause a global catastrophe of massive proportions. In his research he stumbled onto the work of Hugh Auchincloss Brown (1879-1975), an electrical engineer who proposed that the weight of the ice at the poles might cause the tipping of the earth's axis at regular intervals.

Hapgood took Brown's theory and elaborated. What if the weight of the ice caused the earth's rigid outer crust to shift across the soft inner core while remaining mostly intact? Don't confuse this with plate tectonics or continental drift, both of which operate on a massive timeline. Hapgood proposed that the entire outer layer of the earth's crust--the one containing all the plates, oceans, and continents--might be forced to slide suddenly--not over millions of years--into a new position while leaving the axis of the planet unchanged. One can imagine the effects such a movement would have on the oceans, not to mention seismic and volcanic activity worldwide.

Hapgood's crustal displacement theory connects a lot of dots. It explains how a civilization might've dwelt in Antarctica before a crustal displacement shifted the continent further south and transformed the region into a frozen wasteland. It explains how deluge myths appear in nearly every culture on the planet. It explains other curious findings like the preserved mammoths found in Siberia who appear to have been flash-frozen while grazing, or the temperate vegetation beneath the ice-sheets of Greenland. 

Einstein found crustal displacement theory plausible but he argued that the weight of the ice built up at the poles wouldn't suffice to shift the outer crust. Something else was required in order to make the outer crust budge.

Roughly 12,900 years ago in North America, 35 species including the mammoth, that noble beast, and the Clovis culture who hunted them were suddenly wiped out. Scientists have been looking for an explanation for a while and last year they found nanodiamonds in the sediments of this time period at six different sites. Can anyone tell me what might have created these nanodiamonds?

Massive pressure and unbelievable heat. In other words, a big fucking explosion. Scientists suspect a comet larger than the one presumed to have hit Siberia in the early 1900's.

Could the impact have caused the earth's crust to shift? Or did the comet alone cause the cataclysm which lives on in the flood narratives of our ancestors? Either way, it's tough to deny something big must've happened.


I'll leave you with the story of a Russian botanist named Nikolai Vavilov. Vavilov identified eight centres of origin--places where the practice of agriculture suddenly and inexplicably sprang up at the start of the Neolithic Revolution--and guess what he found when he put these locations on a map? They coincide with the eight highest elevations on earth.

Like I said before, too many coincidences. 

For Every Hubble, a Dozen Hapgoods

New ideas are almost always met with resistance, especially when they threaten to uproot the deeply-held beliefs of others. Theories which are widely accepted as fact today were greeted with denial and hostility when first proposed. Copernicus, Darwin, Galileo, Kepler, and Hubble all faced resistance. The lucky ones lived to see their ideas vindicated; the unlucky ones were persecuted, ridiculed, or shunned.

Scholars who practice the "hard sciences"--math, physics, chemistry, etc.--are more likely to overcome the resistance of their peers because they operate within a shared paradigm. They agree on a set of basic rules which provide a means for testing hypotheses. Hubble was able to convince his peers that nebulae are distant galaxies by using a set of laws which were verifiable to anyone who understood them.

But what about history, anthropology, philosophy, sociology, archaeology, and the other soft sciences? These disciplines depend on subjective methods and interpretations. Take history, for example. When a historian comes across a radical new theory he cannot test it via some objective method. He must look at the historical records and see if his new theory fits where it should. Never mind that historical accounts are penned by humans, the most notorious liars on the planet. If the new theory doesn't fit then it is discarded without further consideration.

This leaves us in a predicament. How are we to test the validity of existing models if all ideas that question their validity are rejected without genuine consideration?

For every Edwin Hubble there are dozens of scholars whose theories never see the light of day or whose otherwise successful careers are destroyed because they dared suggest something unorthodox.

Charles Hapgood is such a scholar.

Hapgood was a well-respected academic. He earned his masters in history, worked for what would become the CIA, and went on to teach extensively at various colleges. He enjoyed regular correspondence with Albert Einstein, who penned the foreword to one of Hapgood's books.

Hapgood's theory goes as follows. There existed in prehistory a civilization advanced enough to map the entire globe with extreme accuracy; this civilization was located in Antarctica which was either completely or partially ice-free at the time; a cataclysm destroyed this civilization; a few survivors escaped with their lives, scattering to the Americas and Africa where they proceeded to educate the local hunter-gatherers in matters of agriculture, engineering, writing, and metallurgy.

He didn't come straight out with all of this right away. His theory came together piecemeal, one discovery at a time, starting with the enigmatic Piri Reis map.

Compiled in 1513 by a Turkish admiral named Piri Reis, the map appears to chart the northern coast of Antarctica, a landmass which was only discovered in the 1800's. Thinking he had misread the map, Hapgood sent his findings to the U.S. Airforce. Hapgood received the following response:

Your request for evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis World Map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed. 

The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsula is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map. 

The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the Seismic profile made across the top of the ice cap by the Swedish-British-Norwegian Antarctic Expedition of 1949. 

This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap.
The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick. We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.

A second response followed shortly after. This one came from the chief cartographer of the 8th Reconnaissance Technical Squadron and further supported the original reply:

...Antarctica appears to be truly represented on the southern sector of the Piri Reis map. The agreement of the Piri Reis Map with the seismic profile of this area made by the Norwegian-British-Swedish Expedition of 1949 [...] places beyond a reasonable doubt the conclusion that the original source maps must have been made before the present Antarctic ice cap covered the Queen Maud Land coasts.

And of course:

We are convinced that the findings made by you and your associates are valid, and that they raise extremely important questions affecting geology and ancient history, questions which certainly require further investigation.

Here then is a genuine mystery which, according to the chief cartographer of the 8th Reconnaissance, requires "further investigation." Was such an investigation ever conducted in earnest? Of course not. Mainstream historians scoffed at the idea. No civilization prior to the modern era possessed the know-how to map the globe, let alone outline the Antarctic coast beneath a hundred feet of ice.

Rather than re-evaluate the current narrative, mainstream scholars chose to ignore Hapgood's findings. They proclaimed that the Piri Reis map had been misread by Hapgood and his friends in the 8th Reconnaissance. They gave the theory no consideration. Hapgood was left to continue his search on the fringes, without the support of the academic world.

No matter. Hapgood's work was only beginning. What he proposed next is terrifying and plausible and could explain how an advanced people were pushed to near-extinction. It could explain how portions of Antarctica were ice-free between 13,000-4,000 BCE and also what caused the sudden change in temperature.

Best of all, Hapgood's second contribution receives a glowing endorsement from Albert Einstein himself, who says that Hapgood's "idea is original, of great simplicity, and–if it continues to prove itself–of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the earth’s surface."

BOME. To be continued...

Cultivating Positive Thought

“A man's mind may be likened to a garden, which may be intelligently cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether cultivated or neglected, it must, and will, bring forth. If no useful seeds are put into it, then an abundance of useless weed seeds will fall therein, and will continue to produce their kind.” 

- James Allen, As a Man Thinketh

Last week we talked about how happiness is located within each and every one of us. I proposed that happiness is a state of mind, not a thing out there to be pursued as many would have us believe. Accomplishments in the external world can increase one's happiness but they cannot conjure happiness from misery.

In order to be happy, one must gain mastery over one's mind.

The hard part is controlling your emotions. Once you feel something--anger, jealousy, insecurity, sadness--it's already too late. Emotions are the result of internal chemistry. They alter your physiology. Telling someone to calm down in the midst of a black rage is like asking a sloppy drunk to sober up. Neither request is reasonable or likely.

When trying to control one's emotions, prevention is key. Unfortunately, because emotions arise as a reaction to external stimuli, the only way to guarantee control over them is to control every aspect of one's environment.

Good luck with that.

Since we can't dictate the conditions of the the world around us we must instead strive to control the conditions of our psyche. Mindfulness is a good way to sever the connection between external stimuli and internal reaction. By being constantly aware of our surroundings, thoughts, and emotional state, we can prepare ourselves for the inevitability that something unfavourable will happen to us. By exercising vigilance with the outside world, we can bypass the knee-jerk reaction and deal with the aftermath of a negative experience in a calm, rational manner.

Preventing negative emotions is only one half of the happiness hypothesis. In doing this alone you will find a steep drop in negative feelings, no doubt, but not being miserable and being happy are two different things. We don't want to hover around baseline; we want to be well above it, spiking up and down between contentment--that deep, quiet sense of satisfaction--and elation, which prompts us to hug and laugh and dance.

In order to raise our overall level of happiness we must do more than prevent unhappy thoughts: we must train our minds to mass-produce positive emotions as often as possible. 

If we liken the mind to a garden as James Allen does in As a Man Thinketh, the key to production becomes clear. Thoughts are seeds and whether you plant them consciously or they infiltrate your garden by some other mean, they grow and bear fruit. Good seeds make fruit which sustains the mind and spirit, promote happiness, and encourage seeds of like and kind to sprout and grow. Good seeds require planning and nourishment if they are to flourish. They need good soil, clean water, and careful monitoring. This is gardening 101. No one plants seeds only to let them fend for themselves.

Weeds, on the other hand, require no such care. In fact they thrive in neglected gardens, spread when they are ignored, and choke out beneficial plants without remorse.

Everyone has a garden but not everyone maintains it. Mindfulness is the equivalent of gardening. It involves taking inventory of what is growing and where, pruning those trees and plants which you wish to keep, and yanking out the weeds which threaten to overrun everything else.

In your psyche's garden you reap what you sow. If you fixate on the negative--if you allow bad seeds to take root--your ability to see the good things in life becomes impaired. As weeds spread you run out of room to grow something worthwhile. Your mind becomes crowded with negative thoughts which bear the fruits of anger, bitterness, jealousy, selfishness, sadness, and misery. The more you indulge these thoughts, the more numerous they become until no amount of good fortune can draw your attention away from the downside, the disadvantage, the thing that didn't work out exactly the way you wanted it to. 

Negative thoughts, like weeds, must be yanked out on sight. They serve no purpose, provide no advantage, and do nothing but hinder your growth toward sustained happiness.

Conversely, the same thing happens when you fixate on the bright side of things. The more you do it--the more you plant good seeds and help them grow-- the better you'll get at being an optimist. When you grow the same crop over and over again you gain a better understanding of how the crop functions. You figure out how much sunlight, water, and room each plant needs to reach its optimal size. Eventually it becomes second nature to you.

In the end, each one of us is faced with a choice: do I plant good seeds or bad seeds? Do I cultivate positive thought or wallow in self-pity, boredom, displeasure, and other toxic emotions? Few situations in life are purely negative and without benefit. At the very least a crappy situation serves as a lesson, albeit one you must teach yourself.

And as for those rare situations which provide no lesson and offer no positive bi-product, what use is there in fixating such on an event? Why waste precious time dwelling over some misfortune or tragedy if there is no solution, no lesson to be learned, and no value to be extracted? Bad stuff happens. Tragedy and misfortune can befall anyone. Merely experiencing such an event is a blow in itself; why add insult to injury by letting it ruin your day/week/month/year/life?

There is only one thing in the world that you have complete custody over and that is yourself. In order to master your emotions you must control the seeds which give them life.