Remusings

Breathing - the act of taking air in and out of our bodies - is an activity intrinsically tied to being alive, yet most of us live with little conscious awareness of its existence on a daily basis. The reality of being alive can be defined by the act of breathing itself. Breathing in and out in a steady rhythm signifies that there is life within a body. When one places the finger under the nostrils of a corpse, one is seeking the feel of the breath as the telltale sign of the presence of life. However, despite the vital role of the breath in the phenomenon of life, one can feasibly spend an entire lifetime without ever noticing that one is breathing. In lives lived such, if ever this awareness does arise, it might only be when when one finds oneself gasping for breath, after a hard workout or maybe in the unfortunate situation when one is drowning underwater. In the absence of breath, breath is quickly recognized as the most important necessity for life. The human body is an orch...

There exists an open secret in the heart of Physics, that stands to challenge all sciences of matter. It appears in the form of two theories within quantum physics, that profoundly reorient truths previously held, and shed light on the nature of reality as a whole. These theories have shaken up our understanding of the world and universe in the 20th century. Yet, oddly enough, the news of their implications seems not to have trickled down to the other disciplines as one would have expected. Nonetheless, their congruence with some of the axioms of spiritual doctrines is not to be ignored. Having abandoned the formal pursuit of the sciences at a young age, there are limitations in my grasp of these Quantum Mechanical theories. Yet, I present here approximations of my understanding, reached through casual self-education, and highlight my perception of their implications. As I understand it, the behaviour of subatomic particles, at the quantum mechanical level, demonstrate many pec...

It is obvious that there exists many definitional ambiguities with regards to the phenomenon that we call "life". Interestingly, in a world where hegemony of description is essentially the seat of power, the term has yet to be completely hijacked by the authoritative establishments under which we live today. Therefore, when I decided to Google "define life", the output was multifaceted, diverse and often vague. Nonetheless, conversation cannot be stopped short, simply for lack of exact descriptors. Among the many definitions I found, there is the scientific one (defined by the dynamism of biological processes), the pragmatic one (defined as the necessary condition to be 'alive'), the temporal one (defined as the phenomenon that occurs between birth and death), the philosophical one (defined as the existential conundrum within which we all dwell). And among the various other articulations on the net, Terence McKenna provides a definition of life that I...

Until very recently, the term 'consciousness' was exclusively reserved to describe only the human experience of cognition and thinking. This was, of course, a result of the hegemonic scientific dialectic in our society. By its monopoly over definitions, science was determined to keep the animal kingdom away from being conscious at all. Until apparently sometime in 2012 this happened . However, the curious thing about it was that this admittance of animal 'consciousness', occurred much more like a UN resolution, than as a scientific breakthrough. Instead of the time tested age old scientific methodologies of "truth-finding", the definitional laxity occurred in the form of the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, which was signed into existence by a group of prominent international scientists. While the comedy of the situation was ticklish to me on its own, it also drove home a very obvious point as well - that essentially, science has very little to say...

F: I could accuse you of the same fault Terence, of sweeping generalizations and knee jerk aversions. T: As is your prerogative of course. But do tell more. F: Your constant tirade against modern science and rationalism , bears within it many contradictions you know. It seems like your demonization of science is solely calling for the glorification of the irrational. How can that not be anything but simply reactionary? T: Granted. I do have a particular bent for the irrational and absurd . And I do seek out and revel in finding the edges of the impossible , the improbable , the unexplainable , and to some the indigestible . But, the way I see it, I am simply tooting for the underdog here. Don't you think the irrational deserves a mascot too, like science is for the rational? F: But don't you find that to be quite myopic, un-ruminated? T: Rationally, yes. Irrationally, well.... F: Now that is just aversion! T: Okay. You got me there friend. But my reverence for ...