Totally Uncensored

A Riddle From the Honest Guru

2012-01-28T08:56:00.000-08:00

An entire culture that practices nothing but self confidence, so that they can attain the belief that they needn't practice anything else to reach perfection.

Quotes From the Honest Guru

2012-01-27T10:29:00.000-08:00

Practice Makes Perfect. Practicing the wrong things makes you perfectly wrong.

Don't believe what you read

2011-12-29T14:29:00.000-08:00

Research allegedly discovered thatmost people fear public speaking more than they fear death. Wouldn't you expect a pre public speaking suicide syndrome?

Quotes From the Honest Guru

2011-12-26T13:16:00.000-08:00

Even those who do not believe in God,can undergo the religious experience that those who believe in Godstrive for.

Is there anybody out there?

2011-12-26T11:23:00.001-08:00

Isn't it amazing how much more we know now, only ten years after this video was made?

Quotes From the Honest Guru: Truth

2011-12-26T06:03:00.000-08:00

We have been evolved to survive, not to seektruth; hence the vogue for self denial and delusion.

Why astrology is not scientific, while astronomy is?

2011-12-20T05:19:00.000-08:00

This post is a continuation from: Refuting a scientific theory: the theory of ether

As we have seen in the previous blogs, testability is the heart and soul of any scientific theory. However, as crucial as it might be, it is never sufficient to test a theory against the observations that led to its creation. A scientific theory must predict unknown facts that can only be confirmed by fresh observations.

As a simple example let's assume that after you had tasted sugar, you concluded that white, small-grained powders are sweet. The unscientific way would be to use sugar as a proof for your theory. The scientific way, on the other hand, would be to seek other white, small-grained powders and taste them. If you stayed alive after your experiment, you would have to admit that your theory was wrong. You will have to find another explanation for the sweetness of sugar.

If anything the theory predicts is proven wrong, the theory is incorrect. This potential refutability is a powerful criterion that distinguishes science from pseudoscience. Nowhere it is as clear as in the case of astronomy with astrology.

For thousands of years astrologers had been using the apparent movement of the sun, moon, and the five known extraterrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) to foretell earthly events. Once a sixth planet, Uranus, was discovered in 1781, astrologers added the new planet to their charts and continued with their foretelling as before, without asking whether astrology is still valid with the new planet, or why they had not foretold the existence of the new planet.

Astronomers, on the other hand, were fervidly forecasting the orbit of Uranus. Their calculations, however, based on Newton's theory of gravity, did not match the observed path of planet. There were two potential explanations: either the theory of gravity was wrong, or that the gravity of an unknown heavenly object, farther from Uranus, was responsible for the deviation. Using the same law of gravity, astronomers foretasted where the body that distorts Uranus' orbit should be. And they were right. In 1846, as predicted, they discovered a new planet, Neptune.

Just as discrepancies in the orbit of Uranus had led to the search for Neptune, irregularities in the orbit of Neptune, and to a lesser extent in the orbits of Uranus and Saturn, had led scientists to suspect the existence of a ninth planet. Once more, it was theoretical calculations that led to the discovery of Pluto in 1930. Their calculations were confirmed, and so was the theory of Gravity -- at least until the next observation.

To be continued ...

Unspiritual Yoga

2011-12-03T19:05:00.001-08:00

For thousands of years, the moves of martial arts, Yoga, and similar disciplines have been transferred, free of charge, from teacher to student, directly or via scripts. But no more. Bikram, the founder of Bikram Yoga, sues one of his ex-student for $1m for teaching a Bikram yoga sequence without paying royalties.

Farewell Yora spirituality; welcome materiality.

Quotes From the Honest Guru

2011-11-27T06:45:00.001-08:00

When the Godswere powerful, virgin births were plenty.

Quotes From the Honest Guru: Double Blind

2011-11-26T07:18:00.001-08:00

In the country of the blind, the one-eyed men are stoned to death.

On Knowledge and Wisdom

2011-11-21T08:45:00.001-08:00

I have met many knowledgeable stupids, but never a wise one.

Quotes From the Honest Guru: Leadership

2011-11-20T06:09:00.001-08:00

A leader is someone who understands people enough to make them do what he wants, but not enough to care what happens to them in the process.

Quotes From the Honest Guru: Manipulation

2011-11-05T07:20:00.000-07:00

People will stand up for direct attacks on their values, but will consistently ignore creeping changes. Too often the things you are fighting against, are the very same things you would fight for before changes crept in.

Israel Palestine 1000:1

2011-10-17T20:41:00.000-07:00

A great celebration in Gaza is anticipated, as a thousand prisoners are about to be released. Prisoners with many heads on their belts: heads of butchered children, of toddlers, of people who took the wrong turn; prisoners who planted bombs in school busses, or knifed civilians and cut their hearts out.

In return for these prisoners, a single Israeli soldier will be released. And the Arab street is rejoicing. Not only does it celebrate the release of sons and daughters. It celebrates bringing Israeli to its knees. A thousand to one, can there be a bigger victory against the empire of evil?

The world, as well, does not understand. How can a country be so irresponsible? How can it release a thousand, many of whom will, undoubtedly, return to commit more atrocities and murders?

It was, no doubt, a painful decision, which no other government would have taken. But it was a brave one.

For over five years, an entire country cared about the captured soldier, stood by his family, demonstrated day and night for his release. Pain, disagreements and political disputes do not change the fact that a lost son is everyone’s son. This is the very reason that despite the wars and the terrorist attacks, Israel is a lively vibrant culture. When bombs blew up coffee shops and bars, Israel night life remained like no other. When war called people to their military service, and budgets away from the people, Israel has turned itself into a high-tech power house, second only to the Silicon Valley. A place where the daily encounter with death makes it alive. So in times when Arab governments are busy sacrificing thousands of their own people, Israel is sacrificing its own safety to save one. This is a culture that the Arab world could never accept, and has always tried to destroy: a culture where the life of a single person is worth the world.

Quotes From the Honest Guru: War

2011-10-15T14:59:00.000-07:00

You need two willing parties for a war,but only one for a genocide.

Quotes From the Honest Guru: Revolution

2011-10-12T11:26:00.000-07:00

Every successful revolution has been the result of anger and dissatisfaction, rather than philosophical pursuits.

Quotes From the Honest Guru: War

2011-10-12T11:06:00.000-07:00

A single wolf is all that is needed to wipe out a herd of well-intending sheep.

Refuting a scientific theory: the theory of ether

2011-09-24T12:33:00.000-07:00

This post is a continuation from The Boundaries of Science

To demonstrate how established scientific theories can be refuted, let’s look at the theory of Ether, which was the dominant theory for an entire generation of scientists.

Since Maxwell (1831–1879) formulated the electromagnetic theory in 1865, 19th century scientists had puzzled how electromagnetic waves, such as radio or light, traveled through vacuum and the emptiness of space. Just like waves in water or sound in air, the argument went, electromagnetic waves needed a physical medium to travel through. For this reason alone, a new substance, ether, was proposed. (Although the term ‘ether’ was borrowed from Aristotle, the 19th century’s ether was a different concept altogether.)

According to the theory, ether filled in the entire universe, including vacuum and the inside of material bodies. As such, it had to be a weightless, transparent, frictionless matter that did not take part in any physical or chemical interaction, and was, therefore, impossible to test or verify.

Yet, the theory of ether could predict that light emanating from a moving object in the direction of its movement would travel faster than light emanating from the same object in any other direction. (To illustrate, imagine an item thrown from a moving car. Clearly, if we threw it in the direction of our travel it would travel faster than if we threw it in the opposite direction.)

Michelson and Morley relied on this hypothesis in 1887, when they attempted to determine the speed of earth in space by measuring the difference between the speed of a beam of light traveling in the direction of earth, and that of a beam of light traveling perpendicular to earth’s movement.

Had Michelson and Morley detected the difference they expected, it would have put their names, in a side note, as the first scientists to measure the absolute speed of earth. As it turned out, the experiment failed and no difference was detected. Even though Michelson and Morley could not explain their result, it was sufficient to inflict a death sentence on the theory of ether, and to win Michelson the 1907 Nobel Prize for physics. This experiment subsequently led Einstein to develop the theory of relativity.

Israel - the benevolent guardian

2011-09-20T04:37:00.000-07:00

I wonder if it is the right timing for the Palestinian to demand their own independence now, while the Arab Spring is devouring its victims, and the Arab summer is likely to get worse.

After all, the way the Arab are treating their own people (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, …) as they have always done (Hamas in Gaza, Lebanon Civil War, Algerian Civil War, Jordan 1973, Egypt invading Yemen 1960s, to name a few ) makes Israel look like a benevolent guardian.

Every spring leads to winter; in Egypt it may skip summer altogether

2011-09-11T09:06:00.000-07:00

In a typical convoluted Arab political logic, a senior Egyptian source blamed Israel that the raid of the mob on its embassy in Cairo did not yield the desired results.

A senior Egyptian security source said that the room which the mob was able to breach in the embassy's first floor was left unsecured, and the documents that were found there were "worthless."

"This was a trap for those who broke into the room, so Israel could drag Egypt into a diplomatic crisis by claiming that the embassy was compromised," the source maintained.

Many in the west have called it the Arab Spring.

What Double-Dip Recession?

2011-09-05T08:33:00.000-07:00

The question is not if we are entering a double-Dip recession, but whether we are existing a double-peak recovery?

Egypt, Israel, and how not to solve problems

2011-08-24T14:09:00.000-07:00

The internal problems that infest Egypt are likely to lead the country into a chaos or religious tyranny. Yet, in a typical Middle East fashion, a million people are now called into the streets to protest against the relationship with Israel – the only country in the region that free economic relationship may help Egypt break out of its cycle of illiteracy and poverty.

Israel has nothing to do with the social problems in Egypt, nor with the killings in Libya or the massacre in Syria. But after nearly a century in which the Arab world (with the moral support of many of the western countries) has blamed Israel for all their problems, it’s hard to drop old habits and start taking responsibility. But unless they do, the future they are facing will be graver than the past they fought to leave behind.

The Boundaries of Science

2011-08-21T10:42:00.000-07:00

This post is a continuation of The Origin of Evolution Theory

As strange as it may sound, modern science is not directly concerned with reality, but rather with models of it. Reality is the realm of philosophy. The essence of science is the scientific theory, whose purpose is to provide coherent explanations to observations; an objective aptly summed up by the physics Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman (1918–1988):

No one has ever seen the inside of a brick. Every time you break the brick, you only see the surface. That the brick has an inside is a simple theory which helps us understand things better. The theory of electrons is analogous … The electron is a theory that we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real.

Although theory is at the heart of science, not every theory is scientific. For a theory to be scientific it must first be internally consistent, that is, it should lead to no logical or mathematical paradoxes. If, for instance, a theory could lead to a conclusion that an object may simultaneously exist in two different places, the theory would not be consistent and cannot be deemed scientific. (This example is a paradox that contradicts the principle of space and time: a physical object exists separately in space and time in such a way that they are localizable and countable.)

Unlike mathematical models – which being the creation of the human mind require internal consistency only – scientific theories based on these models must be testable: that is, it does not matter how elegant or internally consistent a theory may be, if it does not agree with observations external to the theory, it is wrong. This requirement means that a theory can be considered scientific only after test criteria can be defined. That is, every theory is potentially refutable. Contrary to the common belief, turning an idea into a scientific theory does not necessarily improve it or make it more reliable. In many cases, it will lead, inadvertently, to the refutation of the idea.

Financial Astrology

2011-08-10T05:00:00.000-07:00

A decade of one crisis succeedinganother, have clearly demonstrated that at time of turmoil the marketis a lagging indicator for the economy, and not as postulated byfinancial theory.

In science when an underlyingassumption is negated, a theory has to be recreated. Therefore, if weclaim that finance and economics are scientific then it's time totoss away the books and go back to the drawing board. Alternatively,we can simply admit that astrology is as predictive as economics, and weshould all go outdoors to watch the stars. At least with astronomy,we have no illusion that we are in control.

The Origin of Evolution Theory

2011-07-31T07:13:00.000-07:00

This post is a continuation from The Creation of the World

Unlike physics and astronomy, in which unbiased observation directly contradicted religious teachings, for a long time progress in biology did not challenge old wisdom. Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries the work of biologist was limited to the classification of all known plants and animals into taxonomic groups. While their highlighted the commonalities living organisms shared, the belief that all living organisms had been created in their current form was so well rooted that no serious alternative had been proposed before 1859. This was the year that Charles Darwin shocked his contemporaries by implying that humans and animals shared a common ancestor.

In 1831, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) joined as a naturalist the survey ship HMS Beagle for an expedition around the world. When he returned home in 1836 with over 2000 pages of notes and thousands of skins, bones and fossils, his work had just begun. It took over 20 years before he finally formalized his findings and observations into a consistent theory which he published in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

Natural selection theory suggests that adaptation to the environment through the survival of the fittest is the main (though not the only) mechanism of evolution. Random variations continuously occur in species, which are constantly under struggle for resources. When “the surviving one of ten thousand trials” gives an organism an advantage in its environment, it would pass on this favorable change to its offspring. Accumulation of such variations within a population – particularly when major environmental changes occur, and fast adaptation to the new environment is required – could eventually lead to the creation of new species.

It took Darwin many years and many attempts to find a theory that could answer the many questions that perplexed him during his voyage. His theory could explain why fossils of extinct animals carried a close resemblance to existing species. It clarified why each of the Galapagos Islands had its different but very similar species of animals. It also accounted for the existence of creatures that, in Darwin’s view, could never be designed by a benign entity, like the parasitic wasp, which – to Darwin's horror and disgust – stored caterpillars to be eaten alive by its grubs.

Modern evolution theory has evolved considerably since Darwin’s days. However, regardless of the major changes the theory has undergone, the new body of evidence, accumulated from otherwise unrelated fields of science, only strengthen its plausibility. While unlocking the secrets of DNA revealed the engine behind the random variations, microbiology gave empirical evidence that not only do such variations occur regularly, but that they directly impact on human lives, as they are both the cause of new diseases (e.g. aids, bird-flu) and the means for their cure.

Further evidence has been derived by paleontologists and evolutionary molecular biologists, who have been able to fill many of the gaps in the history of species. Evolutionary molecular biology provides the tools to measure the amount of DNA change that differentiates one species from another. This has led to the surprise discovery that the difference in the DNA sequence between human and chimpanzee is no bigger than 2%. Humans were no longer the crown of the creation, but the result of random changes that happened to make them better adapted for survival – Aristotle’s scale of value had lost its meaning.

It is not surprising that evolution theory had evoked such passionate antagonism. This time it was not the Church that rose against it, but the public. Its radical implications were far wider than the populist “we are not monkeys” emotional response that led crowds to the streets. Evolution theory eliminated the need for a designer or a creator, and it undermined what was probably the oldest and most frequently used proof for the existence of God, as first expressed by the ancient Roman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106– 43BC):

When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?

Those who object to the evolution theory can be broadly classified into two camps: creationists, and the advocates of intelligent design, also known as design theorists. Creationists believe that the literal biblical narration provides a factual account of events, and reject any kind of evolutionary process. Intelligent design, on the other hand, accepts that organisms could evolve from other organisms, but rejects the randomness of the process and suggest that it was preordained and following a blueprint. To use an analogy, when dominoes fall, although each piece falls because it is pushed by its predecessor, the pattern of the fall is predefined by the original setting of the dominoes.

Intelligent design theorists claim that without such a blueprint, biological organs and systems that display irreducible complexity could not have evolved. That is, no random process could account for the development of an organ, like the eye, which is composed of several interacting parts, all required for its functioning. As the evolution anything but the complete, operating organ could not be of any use, it would not have survived the process of natural selection.

To see a grain in a world of sand

2011-07-30T05:28:00.000-07:00

Sand under the microscope

To see a world in a grain of sand, Blake said, but I think he got it all wrong.

It's the grains in a world of sand that we don't see.

Or maybe we just don't see.

The Creation of the World

2011-03-16T13:19:00.000-07:00

This post is a continuation from Faith and the First Scientists

The heated debate over the working of the universe, we have discussed so far, had little relevance outside the scientific and theological communities. Whether it was the sun or the earth at the center of the universe, or what laws falling bodies obeyed, it made no difference to people’s faith. The new discoveries diminished neither the splendor of the creation nor the greatness of the creator. For most people, religious teachings were about how one goes to heaven, and not how heaven goes.

This attitude still prevails nowadays, when even the most religious of people do not expect their religious practices to explain nature, and are happy to leave these pondering to science. In all areas, that is, but two: the age of the universe and evolution.

According to Genesis, the world was created in six days, and by counting the generations in the Bible since Adam and Eve, theologists concluded that the creation took place some 6000 years ago. This figure is supported by the Jewish calendar, which is believed to commence from the first day of the creation. Contemporary mainstream scientific theory, on the other hand, draws an entirely different picture. It estimates the age of the earth at about 4.6 billion years, and that of the universe at over 13 billion years. Interestingly 6000 years, roughly coincides with the end of the last ice-age, and the beginning of human civilization, as we know it.

Interpretations of the text in Genesis which aim to address this dichotomy have been around since the 19th century. A common explanation was that the Bible, speaking to the ancients who could not comprehend numbers like a million or a billion, did not speak of a ‘day’ (yom in Hebrew) as a period of 24 hours, but rather in a metaphorical way as an unspecified duration of events which could last thousands, millions or even billions of years. (By the way, such big numbers could not be written, let alone understood, before the introduction of ‘0’, which happened around the 7th century in the Arab world, and 13th century in Europe.) Alternative interpretation suggests that the six-days of Genesis do not represent the time of the creation itself, but a six-day period during which God revealed the truth of the creation to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

Despite the various interpretations, many are still adamant that the literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, and that the problem lies with science. They point out that unlike the previous conflicts mentioned, the age of the universe cannot be found by observation or any other direct method, but is deduced from a combination of complex theories with many underlying assumptions. They claim that as theories change frequently they cannot be trusted, and in the end, scientific theory will discover that the biblical age of the universe is correct.

Regardless of future scientific development, this dispute – just like those mentioned previously – threatens only human interpretation and not faith itself. Six days or 13 billion years, it leaves the magnificence of the creation intact, as it does the need for a creator. This, however, is not the case with the theory of evolution, which threatens not only the role of God, but also Her very existence.

Faith and the First Scientists

2011-03-05T14:32:00.000-08:00

This post is a continuation from The inquisition strikes back

Standing upon the shoulders of giants, it was the British physicist Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727) who can be considered the true father of modern physics – based on solid mathematical models. Newton work evolved science in four different areas: his work of the nature of light, his laws of motion, his development of Calculus, and the laws of universal gravitation. Each of these works would have been considered a life time achievement and would have suffice to place him as one of the greatest scientists of all time. Newton achieved them all.

His law of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion could explain the motion of bodies on earth and the motion of the planets bodies. This was a blow to the Church's worldview in which the rules that governed the ‘corrupt’ transient earth were different from the laws obeyed by the perfect eternal heavens. According to Newton, the laws of nature were universal, and applied equally to earth and heavens. The Aristotelian model of the universe had to be replaced, and so was the Church's hegemony of knowledge. The workings of the universe became the realm of science.

While the new scientific way of thinking was partially responsible for the decline in the power of the Church, the resultant image of the world neither threatened the fundamentals of faith, nor replaced the need for a creator. For many scientists, revealing the nature of the world was the way to understanding the creation and the glory of God. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton, were all devout believers who saw their scientific work as a religious undertaking. For example, Kepler wrote in his Harmony of the Worlds:

Geometry provided God with a model for the Creation and was implanted into man, together with God's own likeness. ... It is absolutely necessary that the work of such a Creator be of the greatest beauty.

Although these scientists were aware of the objections their work would provoke, they did not consider the new discoveries to contradict religious teachings. They held the view that the scriptures, written for everyone to understand, were not to be taken literally. Any contradiction between religious teachings and the scientific discoveries was due to human’s mistaken interpretation. They believed that correct knowledge of the cosmos would provide a better insight into the scriptures, and that it was our pious responsibility to reinterpret the texts to match the known facts, as there should be no inconsistency between science and the scriptures when they were rightly understood.

The inquisition strikes back

2011-02-27T19:09:00.000-08:00

This posting follows: Copernicus and the Church

By claiming that the sun, and not the earth, was at the center of the universe, Copernicus directly challenged the Church's sacred worldview, based on the Aristotelian model. But while Copernicus was the first one to publicly challenge the Church's view of the world, many followed. What he had started could not be stopped.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), a German astronomer, developed the Copernican worldview and turned it into a mathematical model. The three laws of planetary motion he conceived are still in use nowadays. These mathematical laws, based on elliptical motion, accurately explained all planetary observations. However, by suggesting that the planets were moving in elliptical orbits and not in the heavenly perfect circular motion, Kepler deviated even further from the Aristotelian model. He was excommunicated from the Lutheran Church in 1612.

Kepler's contemporary, the Italian scientist and astronomer Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), in his most renowned experiment dropped two bodies of different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and demonstrated, once and for all, that all bodies fall at the same speed regardless of their weight. This was the first time that an experiment was used to determine scientific truth, and was an indisputable proof that Aristotle's theory and the Church's dogma were fundamentally mistaken.

But this was not enough for Galileop. Being the first person to apply telescope to the study of the heavenly bodies, Galileo also revolutionized astronomy. His observations led him to discover the moons of Jupiter and the phases of the planet Venus, and convinced him that Copernicus' heliocentric model, with the sun at the center, was the correct one. In 1633, Galileo was brought before the Inquisition for a grave suspicion of heresy. He was forced to formally renounce his beliefs, and was sentenced to life-long house arrest.

Copernicus and the Church

2011-02-17T04:33:00.000-08:00

As we saw in a previous posting, Copernicus, who postulated a model in which the sun was at the center of the universe, knew that the clear advantages of his model would not protect him from the hostile reaction of the orthodox authorities and the Inquisition. It was not until 1543 – the year of his death – that he eventually published his complete work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres.

It is clear from the extent of the criticism of his work that Copernicus challenged not only the knowledge of the cosmos, as portrayed by the church, but he challenged knowledge itself: should our impartial experience determine our understanding, or is it our knowledge that the world should conform to?

For example, Tolosani, a contemporary of Copernicus, wrote:

[Copernicus] seems to be unfamiliar with Holy Scripture since he contradicts some of its principles, not without the risk to himself and to the readers of his book of straying from the faith. ... in his imagination he changes the order of God's creatures in his system. ... he seeks to raise the Earth from its lower place to the sphere where everybody by common consent correctly locates the Sun's sphere, and to caste the sphere of the Sun down to the place of the Earth, contravening the rational order and Holy Writ, which declares that heaven is up, while the Earth is down.

It was most likely, therefore, that the Church would have condemned Copernicus and burn his work, had it not been for an introduction inserted by the publisher. The introduction stated that the book merely presented a simpler way to calculate the positions of heavenly bodies, and that the hypotheses contained within made no pretense to truth that, in any case, astronomy was incapable of finding the causes of heavenly phenomena. This unauthorized insertion, although appalled many, ensured that the book was not immediately condemned. In fact, it was publicly available for over 70 years before it was subject to censorship.

Although some were sentenced to death for their support of Copernicus’ heliocentric system (for example, Giordano Bruno was burnt alive in 1600) it was not until 1616 that the Church placed the work on the List of Prohibited Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum) and decreed that the propositions that the Sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, judging both to be ‘foolish and absurd in philosophy,’ and the first to be ‘formally heretical’ and the second ‘at least erroneous in faith’ in theology. By then, however, Copernicus’ mathematics had already been widely in use, and although many still viewed it as a hypothetical calculation model, it was unavoidable that questions about the nature of the cosmos as derived from the model would arise.

The scientific revolution had begun.

Quotes From the Honest Guru

2011-02-14T04:20:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I had an oyster. It wasn't fresh. It gave me indigestion. A totaly new meaning to "The world is my oyster"

(image credit)

Quotes From the Honest Guru

2011-02-01T11:39:00.000-08:00

More than any other quality, the combination of arrogance and closed mind have led people to the path of success.

Quotes From the Honest Guru

2011-02-01T04:34:00.000-08:00

Challenge is overrated by those who don't have enough of it

The first earth shaker: Copernicus

2010-12-31T14:42:00.000-08:00

Let's continue our exploration of the birth of modern science ...

Since early history the scientists who studied the heavens were the only scholars to use mathematics, and the terms astronomer, astrologer and mathematician were virtually interchangeable. They calculated the dates of the holy days, developed methods to draw astrological charts, and forecast the position of the zodiac signs and the movement of the planets. However, despite their skillful observations, measurement and calculations, many open issues remained unanswered, some unquestioned. Their theories could not account for the changes in the brightness of the planets, nor for their apparent retrograde movement (at times some planets seem to move backwards.) Their models did not explain why Venus and Mercury were never seen far from the sun, and they could not even agree on the order of the planets. They did calculations, and it was not their role to ponder such matters. How the world worked was a theological question that only the Church was allowed to answer.

All this changed in 1514 when a Polish astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) circled amongst a few of his friends an unsigned hand-written book called Little Commentary. In his book, Copernicus introduced the heliocentric model, in which the sun – rather than the earth – was at the center of the universe and all planets, including earth, were orbiting around it. With a single model Copernicus explained the apparent movement of the planets, the sun and the stars. His model could also account for the changes in the brightness of the planets, and offered a singular method of ordering them. Copernicus also managed to calculate the relative distances of the planets from the sun with amazing accuracy (his figures showed less than 10% difference from our current measurements.) However, Copernicus knew that all the advantages of his model would not protect him from the hostility of the orthodox authorities and the Inquisition. It was not until 1543 – the year of his death – that he eventually published his complete work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres.

Perplexity

2010-12-05T06:32:00.000-08:00

People take the lift to use the Stairmaster in the gym on the 14^th floor. Why don’t they use the stairs to the gym instead?

The Birth of Modern Science

2010-10-03T08:09:00.000-07:00

(continued from: Aristotle and the Science of the Church)

While the Church maintained control of the knowledge of the world, and prohibited most non-scripture studies, alchemy was the exception. The study of alchemy did not challenge the Church’s view of the world and therefore, could be practiced.

For over 900 years, from about 500 to 1400, philosophers in Western Europe, surrounded by a cloak of secrecy, predominantly occupied themselves with the search for the mythical philosopher’s stone (the substance that would transform everyday material to gold, and produce the elixir of immortality). Many practical techniques, like distillation, were developed during this period, but the understanding of the world and its working remained unchanged and unchallenged.

During this Dark Age of European science, Arab science flourished. Arab philosophers cultivated an intellectual environment that encouraged the sharing of ideas, open discussion and debates. The scientific methodology they had developed was based on experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories, citation, peer review and open inquiry. This framework, which is the base of all modern science, led to many invaluable breakthroughs in all areas of science: chemistry, physics, optics, astronomy and mathematics.

It was the fall of Constantinople (now Istanbul) that brought Arab science to the attention of the Western European philosophers. Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, had been a major intellectual center. Its conquest by the Turks in 1453 led to an exodus of scientists and philosophers to Western Europe.

Coinciding with the recent invention of printing by Gutenberg around 1450, the scientific knowledge these scholars brought with them (including Arab science) became widely available, and readily absorbed by western philosophers. The seeds for a new worldview were planted in a fertile soil, and science of the stars – the oldest of all natural sciences – was the natural place for them to germinate.

Quotes From the Honest Guru

2010-09-16T19:42:00.000-07:00

If God loved women as much as he loved men, he wouuld have created them, too, streamlined not to stand in long public toilet queues.

Aristotle and the Science of the Church

2010-09-05T10:30:00.000-07:00

(Continues from: Church and Science: the battle begins)

Once the Church assumed political power, its interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures was the only science permitted. Whenever a new philosophy was adopted, it became an inseparable part of the Holy Teachings, impossible to question or challenge.

No philosopher dominated the Holy Teachings more than the Greek philosopher Aristotle (BC 384–322): the most renowned student of Plato and the teacher of Alexander the Great. His collection of lectures, covering the entire field of knowledge known in the Mediterranean world of his day, spanned over 150 volumes. He developed the art of reasoning and logic, and his biological observations and classification of animals were far ahead of his time. For example, he classified dolphins as mammals, a classification that only in the 19th century was confirmed.

Although at first the Church forbade his teachings whether public or private (Council of Paris in 1210) in 1366 he received the Church’s full recognition, and his views became regarded as possessing an almost divine authority. This was ironic as Aristotle himself had used logic and observation to draw his conclusions, and as an advocate of debate and freethinking, he did not believe in blind obedience to authority, but rather that science grew out of curiosity and wonder, to which religious myth gave only provisional satisfaction.

Aristotle supported the geocentric model in which the earth was the center of a finite spherical universe, and all celestial bodies: the sun, moon, planets and stars circled around it in an eternal, perfectly circular motion, driven by the force of a Prime Mover. According to Aristotle, there were two distinct sets of laws, one for the earth, and the other for heaven. He dismissed Democritus idea of the atom as worthless, and instead believed that everything was made of a combination of four elements: earth, water, air and fire. The combination of these elements in each object determined how fast it would strive to reach the center of the earth – the heavier an object was, the faster it would fall. Aristotle also postulated a fifth element, ether, which he believed to be the main constituent of all heavenly bodies.

On earth, Aristotle suggested a hierarchical model he called The Great Chain of Being. It was not only a systematic method of classification, but also a scale of value – the higher an item was in the hierarchy the more it was worth. It gave organic items higher value than inorganic matter; living organisms were placed higher than planets; and within living organisms worms were at the bottom and men at the top. In Aristotle's view, the universe was ultimately perfect, which meant that the Great Chain was also perfect with no waste or duplication – each link contained exactly one species. This left no room for change or development and led to the doctrine of fixed species: if every link is occupied and none is occupied twice, no species can ever move from its original position. To do so would leave one level empty and put two species on another level.

It is easy to see why the Church adapted to Aristotle so willingly and why it eradicated any potential challenge. Aristotle’s philosophy separated the transient, corrupt earth from the perfection of the eternal heavens, and left room for the Divine and the angels beyond the outer spheres. (Some, for instance, speculated that the angels were pushing celestial bodies in their orbits.) The Great Chain of Being was treated not only as a description of nature, but also as philosophical justification for social immobility; that is the futility of people attempting to change their status and position in society. Man, at the very center of the universe, was the crown of the creation. Christians were superior to every other man, and the Church was assigned to rule. This was a law of nature. This was the way the Church wanted it to remain.

Church and Science: the battle begins

2010-06-19T06:20:00.000-07:00

(continued from Science Vs. Religion)

Must scientific and religious viewpoints collide, or can there be consistent description of the universe in which each is equally valid? To answer this question, let’s start by exploring the origin of this rivalry.

In ancient Rome, Christianity was a persecuted secret society, and it was not uncommon for emperors to turn the people against the Christians at times of trouble. But when in the year 310, General Constantine, divinely inspired to take the cross as his standard, won the battle against general Maxentius – the battle that made him the emperor – he pronounced Christianity to be the religion of Rome. It didn’t take long before the persecuted Christian minority had gained enough power to start persecuting others.

In 385, Priscillian, a Christian theologists, won his place in history for being the first Christian executed by the Christian authorities. The Church sentenced Priscillian, with six of his companions, to death for heresy: that is, for not following the official line of the Church. For centuries to come, his execution set the stage for how the Church dealt with any of its subjects who questioned its teachings.

By the early Middle Ages, the Church, which had continued to consolidate its power, had established itself as the spiritual leader of the “civilized world”, and often as the political and economical superpower, successfully challenging rulers and states.

To strengthen its authority further, the Church positioned itself as the custodian of all truth, which it alone was authorized to expound under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It actively eliminated any challenge to its teachings by allowing only the officially correct views of nature and scripture; and in 1231 it established the Inquisition to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, and to examine and forbid errors and false doctrines.

Heretics became the enemy of society.

In the beginning, interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures formed the foundation for the science of the Church. However, whenever the Church council adopted a new philosophy – even those philosophies that were originally banned – it became an inseparable part of the Holy Teachings, impossible to question or challenge.

I often wonder how many of those who strongly believe that their religious views make them good believers, realize that not so long ago, the same institutions that promote their current ‘good believer’ views, would have put them on the stake for the very same beliefs.

(to be continued)

Science vs. Religion -- the real question

2010-06-12T09:33:00.000-07:00

In the outer rim of a 200 billion stars galaxy, a blue planet, earth, is traveling at a staggering speed of over 100,000 kilometers per hour. It would have disappeared in the vastness of space, if it were not for a mysterious and invisible force of gravity that keeps it orbiting, for all eternities, round a medium-size yellow sun, 150 million kilometers away.

Every 176 years, four other planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, are lined up on the same side of the sun. This was not known to the ancient astronomers and astrologers, whose picture of the universe did not include Uranus (discovered in 1781) and Neptune (discovered in 1846). This fact, however, inspired the farthest exploration in the history of humankind, when in 1977 two spacecrafts, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, were launched to reach the aligned planets. The extraordinary photos they beamed back, and the new information they are still sending from the final frontier of our solar system, some 15 billion kilometers from home, have made this exploration a great triumph of science and our understanding of the laws of nature, without which none of this could have been achieved.

These laws of nature: the principles of motion, action and reaction and gravity, are the very laws that started the age of scientific exploration and changed our understanding of nature forever. Although this new worldview did not directly contradict the principles of faith, it did threaten the monopoly the religious authorities enjoyed as the guardians of all knowledge, as declared, for instance, in the Council of Trent (1546):

No one relying on his own judgment and distorting the Sacred Scriptures according to his own conception shall dare to interpret them contrary to that sense which Holy Mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and meaning, has held or does hold, or even to interpret them contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.

This powerful position was not to be given away without a fight; so rather than choosing to become the patrons of the sciences and embracing the new discoveries in order to strengthen faith and belief, the Church and its judicial institution, the Inquisition, chose to declare the new worldview heresy and its holders heretics.

The birth of modern science into this environment still influences our way of thinking nowadays, nearly 500 years later. Because, while only esoteric minorities will not embrace the many improvements that only science could bring (medicine, transportation, communication, to name just a few) many still view the scientific worldview to be a threat to their beliefs.

Is it a real threat? Must scientific and religious viewpoints collide, or can there be consistent description of the universe in which each is equally valid? These are deep philosophical questions that have been discussed for generations by religious people, scientists and philosophers. But whatever philosophical conclusions they may reach, for most of us, the real question is whether we, a society empowered by science-born technology, can afford to run our society on ancients principles devised far before the knowledge to create this technology was even conceived.

Media: The War Israel Has Lost

2010-06-06T10:30:00.000-07:00

The Middle-East war is fought in many fronts. While Israel has maintained its militarily superiority, it’s been continuously defeated on the PR and Media fronts, which it tends to neglect. The way the recent flotilla event was conducted PR-wise, is merely the tip of the iceberg of Israel inability to comprehend the importance of International Media and PR as a legitimate warfare strategy. In this case, for instance, assuming that Israel needs to maintain the siege on Gaza, let’s see how it could have conducted a Media-savvy operation.

1. In the months prior to the flotilla voyage, Israel could have preempted and published the identity of those passengers with links to Al-Qaeda and Hamas. This would have made it apparent that the intentions of the Flotilla passengers were not necessarily peaceful. It would have also made some of the genuine humanitarian activists on board reconsider the trip, as I believe that many of them were unaware of the terrorist affiliation of their crew mates.

2. When the Flotilla neared Israeli water, all communication with the ship should have become public. This would have made the non confrontational alternatives known. That is, that Israel didn’t object to the transportation of the humanitarian aid, and that the flotilla was welcomed to the Israeli port of Ashdod, where it would be inspected, and the cargo, accompanied by some of the flotilla’s members, would be shipped to Gaza by land. It would have also made it clear that sending in troops, was the last option, only after every other compromise had been declined by the ship.

3. The preparation of the Flotilla passengers for violent confrontation should have also been broadcasted live, before the commando boarded the ship. After all, Israeli helicopters were flying above the ship and could easily have broadcast the violent intentions of the passengers.

4. The Israeli commandos themselves should have made it visibly media-clear that their guns were paint-guns rather than real ones. Trying to fix the wrong perception after the event, once the public had made their mind, was predictably ineffective.

The result of confrontation with the Israeli professional army was known in advance. This leaves us to believe that the purpose of the confrontation was to be defeated, and thus score another win on the PR front. This is a war that Israel has been neglecting for too long, and must master, at least as much as it has mastered the military front.

A naive question about Israel, Gaza and hypocrisy

2010-06-02T01:14:00.000-07:00

The Rafah Crossing

The Israeli attack on the flotilla to Gaza has heated up emotions around the globe. But leaving emotions aside, the Gaza situation raises many question.

The first one that comes to mind, is about the siege itself. Because, while Israel is condemned for the marine siege of Gaza, a territory from which thousands of rockets have been launched onto Israel cities, Gaza has another border, a border with Egypt. Rafah is the border crossing between Egypt and Gaza. However, except for a few short periods, the crossing has been closed since 2007.

Egypt, a country of brothers to the Palestinians, has stopped any access to Gaza. Do they have a reason that Israel doesn’t? Why don’t we see attempts to break the into Gaza through the Egyptian border? Why aren’t they condemned?

Quotes from the Honest Guru

2010-05-31T03:25:00.000-07:00

All men are created equal.
Discrimination starts only after birth.

(image credit)

Quotes From the Honest Guru

2010-05-22T22:33:00.000-07:00

What does liberal mean, when so many liberals have no tolerance towards any illiberal opinion?

(image credit: iddieforana)

It wasn’t not me; it's my brain’s fault

2010-05-18T18:46:00.000-07:00

(image credit: iangti)

Scientists have recently claimed that anti-social behavior, especially amongst youth, is caused by chemical imbalance in the brain. In other words, the research states that youth are not responsible for their behavior. It’s their brains’ fault. The social implications of this research are staggering.

Sociologists and criminologist now claim that we must consider this research when judging youth criminal and anti-social behaviors, and treat them as if they were irresponsible for their acts. However, only a couple of generation ago anti-social behavior was far less common among young people. Have our brain changed that much? Unlikely

After all, the greatness of our mind is that it gives us the ability to shape and control it, but only if we believe we can. Taking away our responsibility to control our own mind makes us incapable of doing so.

Blaming our brain processes, as if they were a disease, for our behavior is a path that we, as a society, must never take. Not only will it open the door to justifiable criminal or anti-social behaviors, it will also justify discrimination based on physiological criteria. After all, if we believe that our physiology takes away our choice and determines our behavior, discrimination based on physiology and background is the right thing.

It’s been a long and painful journey to learn to recognize people for who they are, and not for their background. Do we really want to risk reversing this great achievement? Don’t we want to encourage the human spirit to overcome the limitations of the body, rather than write off the human spirit altogether, and treat people as if they were nothing more than predictably-behaved bag of chemicals? Or is it really all we are?

Quotes From the Honest Guru

2010-05-14T19:32:00.000-07:00

Religions take everything that your DNA naturally wants to do to survive and procreate and makes it wrong.

Anonymous

(image credit: scart)

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-05-05T16:51:00.000-07:00

‘I’m so happy for you,’ is nearly always a lie, as most people will do anything to bring you to conform with their mediocrity. Only then will they be able to relate to you.

(image credit: Kerry)

On space travel and cell phones

2010-04-24T20:40:00.000-07:00

My workplace has recently changed our blackberries to the latest model. You know the one I mean. It has GPS, so that I can never use ‘I lost my way’ as an excuse to come late to meetings; it has a built-in camera, so they can always ask me for an on-the-spot proof of my whereabouts; it also has voice recording, which I can’t think of how it may be used. It’s a wonderful (though mostly useless) gadget, but with one major drawback: the keys are so small that I cannot use them.

Things started falling into place once I realized that the blackberry was issued by Virgin, whose airplanes’ economy class has the smallest leg room. Is it possible that the smallness of Virgin different offerings is not a coincidence, but rather a part in a bigger plan? After all, virgin is one of the most ambitious companies, whose current challenge is to create the first commercial space travel service – a service that will greatly benefit from miniaturization. In other words, is it possible that the picture above is not of a model, but of an actual spacecraft?

You see, the problem with miniaturization nowadays is not of technology, but of usability. It’s the human interface, rather than technology, that restricts the size of our tools. Just imagine how profitable an airline carrier, a car manufacturer or a cell phone provider could be if we, human, were half our current size or smaller.

I am sure that for someone like Sir Richard, who does not believe that anything is impossible, shrinking human to support the development of space technology is a worthwhile challenge. Small telephones and airplanes seats are just a step in this direction.

So when on an airplane, beware of mushrooms and bottles that say ‘drink me’. It may be a trick.

Can you argue science?

2010-04-21T07:10:00.000-07:00

(image: http://autumnsgoddess.deviantart.com/)

Too often I find myself attacked for ‘scientific narrow-mindedness’ by people who feel that they are qualified to create or refute scientific theories they don’t understand. I used to argue and try to explain the scientific viewpoint, but I do it no more.

Nowadays, whenever someone argues that the universe cannot be that old, that there is zero probability that evolution processes created the diversity of life on earth, that remote planet location impact human behavior, or any other theory, I only ask two questions:

1. Why is winter colder than summer?

2. Why is the top of a high mountain colder than its foot, even though it’s closer to the sun?

Not surprisingly, many of those who feel qualified to discuss advanced scientific theories, are unable to satisfactory answer these simple questions. As any further discussion is likely to be futile, I take my scientific hat off, and quickly resume my role as a ‘civilized’ member of society.

Can you answer these questions?

Fake Science

2010-04-03T08:57:00.000-07:00

(image: http://theflyingtrilobite.deviantart.com/)

Science and scientific – are there better words to win an argument and prove how right you are? After all, if something is scientific or based on science it must be true, or so the common wisdom goes. And yet, few words have been more misused and abused – sometimes out of ignorance, but too often intentionally, in a manipulative way. So what does scientific really mean? And how can we, the non experts, know if something is scientific or merely presented as such?

Let’s for instance, look at an ad for a shampoo claiming that it contains a certain chemical that was scientifically proven to help hair grow (sorry guys, as I am in America where free speech is restricted by corporate litigation, I will not get more specific). To reassure you, the potential buyer, the ad shows a man in a lab coat (smiling, of course) holding the magic potion in a test tube. Doesn’t it make you feel like running to the nearest drugstore to get the shampoo even if you don’t suffer from hair problems? But is this really scientific? If you delved a bit deeper into the research you’d find that although the chemical has been proven to help hair grow (after all, they can’t risk false advertising) it needs to be consumed orally. The shampoo, on the other hand, clearly states that it’s for external use only.

Profiteering, however, is not the only time that the name of science is abused. Many political, religious and semi religious interest groups present fake-science as science to manipulate opinions and beliefs. Astrology, Intelligent Design and parts of popular financial theory are just the tip of the iceberg. So how can the minority who cares about truth test if what they are told is scientific or merely faked to look so?

As science is about validation and confirmation of theories, a good test is to try to imagine what hypothetical new discoveries may invalidate the so-called scientific claim. If you can’t come up with any, it’s likely that it's not science.

Let’s take an example. Based on traditional science, the speed of an object depends on the position of the observer that measures this speed. That is, if you throw a ball at 20mph from a moving car, for the person throwing the ball, the speed of the ball will always be 20mph regardless of what direction the ball is thrown. However, to an observer on the road, if the ball is thrown in the direction the car is travelling at 60mph, the speed of the ball will be 80mph (60+20). On the other hand, if the ball is thrown against the direction of the travel, its speed would be only 40mp (60-20).

This common sense science, also known as Newtonian Mechanic, was held true until an interesting fact was discovered: light does not behave like a ball. That is, for an observer standing on the road, the speed of light ‘thrown’ in the direction of the moving car or against the direction of the travel would always be the same, regardless of how fast the car goes. This single discovery was sufficient to shutter a scientific theory held for over 200 years, and led Einstein to develop the Theory of Relativity – which still holds nowadays. This process of refuting existing 'truths' when new facts are discovered is the main differentiator between science and any other belief system.

On the other hand, fake-science used to support other beliefs systems is irrefutable. We can't imagine any new discovery that will refute the ‘proofs' for the existence of God, heaven and hell, astrology or Intelligent Design. This irrefutability, of course, is used by followers to ‘prove’ the truth of their beliefs. While this may be the case, it also invalidates their claim that their beliefs and truths are scientific.

This is the crux of most modern scientific-religious arguments. While believers try to present any ‘not yet known’ in a scientific theory as a proof that the theory is invalid, they also present their irrefutable beliefs (often tautologies) as scientific. They are not. And only proper science education will ensure that we can always tell the difference.

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-03-29T01:59:00.000-07:00

Today you are the youngest you'll be for the rest of your life.

Take advantage of it.

(image: http://www.ambrosiana.cz/)

If size matters, nothing else does!

2010-03-28T05:22:00.000-07:00

And who is better to express it than Monty Python

I am special

2010-03-27T16:54:00.000-07:00

I know that advertising is an art (in other words, nobody seems to know how it works). But while some ads that make no sense do work (this is because people make no sense), other ads makes you think what went through the mind of the people behind them. Can anyone, for example, explain the thinking behind this banner, which popped up on my screen recently ?

Is it the type of ad that tried to make me feel unique and special, being one of only 400 million people? Or maybe it’s the type of ad that should make me feel that I am not alone, but rather part of the herd? And why should I claim this award anyway? After all, even if they had a large budget for this award, let’s say $40 million, each award cannot be worth more than a dime. Do you still feel lucky to see the lucky banner?

Next banner please.

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-03-24T05:34:00.000-07:00

Faith is

the intrinsic ability
to hate those
who love less than you do.

The email that may save my life

2010-03-21T06:28:00.000-07:00

Today I got an email that can save my life. I don’t even need to believe it, because it’s guaranteed that even if I don’t believe it, only reading it would make all my wishes come true. So I read it twice - just in case. However, whenever I get such an email my first wish is that it would be the last. So far this wish has not been fulfilled.

And, of course, there is also the problem of ecards, but that is a different story altogether.

The Human Spider

2010-03-19T18:03:00.000-07:00

In an interview with Alain Robert, the human spider, who has climbed, unprotected, many of the tallest towers in the world, he claimed that it’s much easier to climb the towers than to get licenses to climb them.

This is true in many areas, and it makes me wonder if the true role of our democratic institutions is to promote and establish mediocrity.

Zen story

2010-03-19T05:26:00.000-07:00

A Zen student, who felt he had mastered his learning, decided to leave his master and go to the world to find his own students. When he asked his master’s blessing, his master pointed at a pile of rocks and asked, if the pile was there, or if it was only in his student’s mind.

The student answered that the sacred Buddha had taught us that as everything in the world is the manifestation of our mind, the pile of rocks, as well was only the creation of the mind.

“It’s a very heavy load to walk around with in your travel”, answered the Zen master. Why don’t you stay until you can leave it here behind you?

All about a name

2010-03-17T19:51:00.000-07:00

I’m often asked about the meaning of my name.

There are two Japanese characters pronounced 'Ran'. The first one means orchid:

The second means chaos:

It's for you to guess which one was chosen for me.

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-03-15T10:28:00.000-07:00

I've always preferred fake friendliness to genuine hostility

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-03-13T16:40:00.000-08:00

Don't wait until you know everything before you do anything.

Trust the news

2010-03-13T12:10:00.000-08:00

(image: http://dinopowergirl.deviantart.com/)

Antidepressants are largely waste of time and money say experts

How depressing. Until now ignorance about this fact has kept so many people happy. I think they should take a class action against the scientists for the cost of their newly found unhappiness.

Conviction: how sure are you?

2010-03-12T08:57:00.000-08:00

Some years ago, my son got quite sick, so I took him to the doctor. The doctor did what doctors do: sent my son for some tests, looked at some books, spoke on the phone, drank some tea, and finally came with a diagnosis and recommendation for a treatment. Both I didn’t agree with.

I have found that in most cases, even in areas I don’t know much about, I can follow someone’s line of thinking and resonating by asking questions on the reasoning process itself rather than on the subject. So although I knew very little about medicine, I felt doubts about the doctor’s conclusions, and challenged her.

At first she turned defensive – nearly aggressive -- and insisted she was right. But when I asked her to sign a statement making herself personally liable in case her diagnosis was proven wrong, her conviction somewhat diminished, and she was willing to explore alternatives. In the end, we agreed that her original conclusion was wrong.

There are two conclusions we can draw from this short story. First, anyone – even an expert – can be wrong, and when important matters are at stake, we must use our own judgment rather than follow any advice blindly. Second, unless you are of the suicide bomber type, willing to sacrifice your life for your unquestionable beliefs, you should always question your own convictions.

How sure are you when you are sure of something? Is there the slightest possibility that you might be wrong after all? What consequences are you willing to accept if found wrong?

The first step to tolerance and understanding is to admit that as confident we might be, we might still be wrong. Is there anything you know beyond a shadow of a doubt?

The good old days

2010-03-09T12:46:00.001-08:00

Anyone still missing the good old days?

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-03-09T04:20:00.000-08:00

I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I don’t think you realize that what you heard was not what I meant.

International Women's Day

2010-03-08T06:27:00.000-08:00

If it's not on your calendar, today, the 8th of March is the international women's day.

Think. Don't believe!

2010-03-07T09:17:00.000-08:00

It’s been over 2000 years since the birth of man who saved the world. Now that the world has been saved, it's time for a bit more healthy skepticism and clear thinking, and a bit less saving.

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-03-06T10:04:00.000-08:00

And the day came when the risk it took to remain tight in the bud became greater than the risk it took to blossom.

Anais Nin

(image: http://flowkradd.deviantart.com/)

Do we get our priorities right?

2010-03-05T03:50:00.000-08:00

A friend has just bought, for over $500, the latest, most advanced, can do all vacuum-cleaner, which should make housework an effortless exercise. She uses the time and energy she now has to go to the gym and get fit.

I don’t get it at all. Doesn’t it make more sense to get the hardest to use machine for about £50. This would give her all the exercise she needs at home, while saving her the time and money she spends in the gym?

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-03-03T06:10:00.000-08:00

I am not a believer,
I have seen the truth!

My travelling without a word

2010-03-02T07:33:00.000-08:00

Mountaineering and Diving

2010-03-02T05:50:00.000-08:00

(photo by bitax)

You are hot and sweaty. You are holding firmly. A mild unpleasantness grips your stomach, and you wonder, once again, what the hack you are doing here.

You jump in, hit the water and immediately feel the wet coldness swallows you, sending shivers throughout your body. Your breath ceases until your body adjusts. You float weightlessly. The water is clear, blue and deep and the colors and shapes dance around you in ever-changing unique patterns. You are surrounded by schools of fish, and you feel one of them.

You are heavy and tired, your muscles complain whenever you stretch to reach for the next hold. The sun is burning your back, and you know that you must savor your strength to last for the rest of the day. You regulate your breathing, as you have done so many times before,until your muscles relax, casting away tiredness and fear - the fear of the exposure, being so high, secured only by a thin rope, and by the hope that the last anchor you placed can really hold your weight. You take another deep breath and turn away to look into the void, into scenery that as often as you have exposed yourself to, never ceases to fill you with awe. You become weightless, and for a short moment, time and space disappears into the deep void under you.

Scuba diving and mountaineering; weightlessness against fighting gravity, the gray rock and the dark blue of the deep sea, can any activities be more different?

And yet, for me they are so much alike. It’s nature and the existence on the fine line between struggle and harmony. It’s total solitude in environments that were not meant for me, and I wasn’t meant for them. It’s the acquired skills that ensure my survival. Skills that have become unnatural second nature, where senses remain sharp and the mind cannot wonder, as any mistake may be my last. Primeval fears and barriers are overcome and the mind transforms, wiping out the mundane. The body follows its path, and the mind, which controls it, sets free.

Life in its purest form.
Happiness.

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-02-27T11:45:00.000-08:00

People love to support the underdog. However, being an underdog does not make you right, it does not even make you good or just. It simply makes you an underdog.

Simply beautiful

2010-02-26T07:21:00.000-08:00

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-02-25T13:57:00.000-08:00

If insects were to disappear tomorrow, all life on earth would perish. If man were to disappear tomorrow, within a generation life on earth would flourish.

(anonymous)

Medicine for sadness

2010-02-24T18:30:00.000-08:00

"The best thing for being sad," replied Merlyn, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something. That is the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honor trampled in the sewers of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then - to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be threatened by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting. Learning is the thing for you."

T.H. White
The Once and Future King

A question from the honest guru

2010-02-23T18:27:00.000-08:00

If you fail to fail, are you a failure or a success?

Eggs and the extinction of the human race

2010-02-23T02:16:00.000-08:00

Until recently eggs were raising our cholesterol to dangerous levels and should have been eliminated from our diet. But not any more. Research has shown that eggs are good for our health, and will remain so until a future research will prove the opposite.

I just wonder how generations of my ancestors managed to survive without knowing how to have a good diet, live properly, healthily and correctly. According to another research, we should have been extinct by now.

So until the final extinction, or until it becomes unhealthy again, I am going to have Spanish Omelette for my dinner. Bon Apeptit.

Post-Capitalism is ...

2010-02-22T06:30:00.000-08:00

A system in which reward is not shared by the risk takers, and where the biggest players demand to be rewarded for making products that no one needs or wants to buy.

About brothels, banks and governments

2010-02-21T11:39:00.000-08:00

The Mustang Ranch brothel, also known as the Mustang Bridge Ranch or Valley of the Dolls, was Nevada's first licensed brothel. In 1990 the U.S Federal Government seized it for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed.

I only hope governments are doing a better job at running the banks they own than at running brothels.

Quotes From The Honest Guru

2010-02-20T18:27:00.000-08:00

Few can cause more harm than a self-righteous or an ignorant do-gooder.

2010-02-20T04:50:00.001-08:00

Whenever you are frustrated with your job and your boss, remember, it can get worse:

Quotes From The Honest Guru

2010-02-19T19:33:00.000-08:00

If you ever believe what you are told in the media remember that:

The chances of anything coming from Mars,

are a million to one he said.

But still they come.

Jeff Wayne

The tragedy of relationships

2010-02-16T19:23:00.000-08:00

The tragedy of any relationship starts the moment you have lost your ability to make each other happy, yet maintained the ability to inflict pain and make each other miserable.

Once you are there, there is no way back. Step down.

The Claws

2010-02-15T07:19:00.000-08:00

One afternoon, when I was leisurely drinking my tea, I suddenly felt that my cup was fighting to evade my grip. Closer examination, however, revealed that it wasn’t my cup at all; it was my hands, having been terrorized by a pair of claws that that had arrived to replace them, that were trying to escape.

“Not again!” I thought, and decided that this time I was going to file a complaint.

My spoon gave a busy signal first, and then gave no dial tone, and I realized that a visit in person would be necessary, so I dived in. Fortunately enough, I could easily reach the cube of sugar, which was still lying at the bottom. The complaints department, on the other hand, seemed to have moved and I couldn’t find it anywhere.

A little blue fish approached me and asked for the way to the technical department. But having missed my tea, I felt hungry and swallowed it. This seemed to somewhat upset his big brother, who appeared from behind the corner, and ignoring my unsavory flavor, gulped me at once.

I knew I was heading in the right direction when I saw a Complaints Department sign shimmering from the back of his throat, and I started tracing the arrows on the floor.

Down the spiraling stairs I went, and up the dark corridors, until I found myself facing a locked door, who rudely refused to let me in. I was about to retrace my steps, when my claws, eager to prove themselves useful, scratched their way through the unfriendly door to the other side, where I was attacked by champagne corks, balloons and a group of women who insisted on kissing me all over.

“Surprise!” they called, blowing the trumpets.

“Welcome to the accounting department,” said an accountant-looking woman. “You are the first person to have joined us since the freeze in human resource,” she said, and with a sweep of her arm cleared a space for herself on a big mahogany desk and set on it opened legged.

“We are your family now,” she continued, pulling me towards her, with her eyes glowing. “So make sure your report is on my desk by seven tonight.”

“But I’m only looking for the complaints department,” I said faintly.

“The complaints department?” she shrieked loudly, attracting all eyes in my direction, making me wish I’d never uttered the words. “He wants the complaints department!

“We are not good enough for him here. Let’s show him what we do to people who are after the complaints department!” she cried and kicked me straight through the wall into a small room, where I crash-landed over a machine, whose jammed cogs started to heat up to my touch, while humming cheerfully to themselves.

“Thanks for the lift,” said the small slimy blue fish, jumping out of my mouth. “Keep the change,” he continued, handing me a dime.

I wanted him to stay and introduce me to the machine, which seemed too shy to make my acquaintance. But he vanished in the crowed.

As conversation seemed impossible under the circumstances, I started staring the walls, hoping to find my way out. One brick after the other I tapped, until I found what I was after.

“Exit,” said the brick, and smiled temptingly.

“Could you please open up for me?” I asked. But she kept quiet, and only her widening smile indicated she’d heard me. I tapped her again, and she opened straight away, and I could see half a dozen sulking people sniffing roses in disgust.

“No more complaints!” they shouted when they saw me. “Can’t you see we’re closed now? Take a rose and go away.”

But as I noticed that the roses formed the words ‘Complaints Department’ I decided to pursue the issue for which I’d come.

“When will you open again?” I asked.

“Tomorrow, It’s always tomorrow,” came the reply.

“It’s only a small issue.” I insisted. “Look, I was having my cup of tea, when all of a sudden my hands decided to escape, and left me with these,” I said, making my claws visible.

“A very nice pair of claws… osprey’s I should say. They look just fine to me.”

“But I don't want them. I want my hands back!”

“You think that you’ve got a problem, don’t you?” they grumbled. “Look at these roses, for instance. They don’t even smell. And they are all fresh. Do you really think that we can keep listening to your complaints under such conditions?”

“But…” I said, feeling embarrassed to have been so selfish.

“Listen mate, one more word from you and you’re the manager here. Then, all your complaints will be dealt with by our internal affair department,, where they’ll be given a special clearing priority, just over there,” he said pointing to the dust bin in the corner.

“But …” I said again.

“That’s done it. “Starting now, you’re the manager. And if you don’t want us all to be going on a strike, you’d better do something about these roses straight away,” they said, and pushed me into a manager’s soft-leathered chair.

As a manager my claws turned up to be of great value, so I decided to keep them, and withdrew my complaint altogether. And this was the beginning of my professional life.

Quotes from the honest guru

2010-02-14T06:31:00.000-08:00

If you sometimes feel a little useless, offended or depressed …always remember that you were once the fastest and most victorious little sperm out of millions.

A question from the honest Guru

2010-02-13T03:29:00.000-08:00

Why do psychics ask your name?

Why do they hate Israel so much?

2010-02-12T13:20:00.000-08:00

I have just returned from a couple of weeks in Europe – a continent in distress. The financial crisis is felt in every city in Europe, and may result in default on debt of some of the European countries. It may even lead to the collapse of the EU altogether. Iran’s plans to continue with its nuclear program will soon put Europe in the range of the Iranian nuclear warheads. The rise of extreme Islam in Europe threatens to change the face of Europe and the European culture forever. Many real problems that may threaten the European lifestyle, and yet anti-Israel sentiment is still prevalent.

My question is why? Why is anti-Israel sentiment high on the public agenda in a continent with so many urgent problems? Is Israel really such a risk to Europe, or alternatively, are Israel’s actions so horrific that Europe simply cannot ignore them for moral reasons, and put then high on the agenda, despite the more urgent problems?

Let’s look at some facts. Israel’s birth at 1948 was out of war. Like most other wars it’s controversial, and there are numerous viewpoints and interpretations of the events. Undoubtedly, both sides had their fair share of atrocities. Yet, no other birth of a nation has created such one-sided hatred.

Nowadays the existence of Israel is a fact. None of those who took part in the birth of the country is in a position of power any longer. Most of them are dead. So even those who feel that Israel birth was in sin must admit that most living Israelis had nothing to do with the birth of their country. Yet they are still a target of hatred.

There is no doubt that the Arab-Israeli conflict is ugly. There is no doubt that this has been a horrible war in which both sides have committed many atrocities. But there is also little doubt that either side is the sole responsible. The situation is rather hopeless, and nobody, absolutely nobody, has a solution. Yet, Israel is hated.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is far from being the bloodiest conflict in the world. It’s far from having the worse record of atrocities. Let’s, for example, look at some numbers (all taken from the Historical atlas of 20th century Matthew White):

The total death toll of the Israeli Arab conflict in over 100 years claimed about 60,000 people, out of which 7,000 Arabs were killed in the 40 years of occupation. It’s a horrible number indeed. However, in the same period 83 million people were killed as a result of tyranny and genocide. That is, Israel has been responsible for 0.07% of all such killings. Not so bad considering that the country has been in a war the entire period. Let’s compare it to other countries:

In China 40 million were killed under Mao

In Russia 20 million were killed under Stalin

Sudan conflict has consumed 225,000 lives

Somalia 400,000

Romania 150,000

Cambodia 225,000

Algeria 100,000 (fundamentalist Moslem insurrection only, not including the Algerian war)

Kurdistan 300,000

Liberia 150,000

Angola 550,000

Philippines 50,000

Not that these numbers justify the Arab-Israeli war, but one must wonder why the hatred in the European street is focused on Israel rather than on Algeria or Angola, for instance.

How come Israeli scholars are banned from many English academic conferences? Why don’t they ban Burmese, Sudanese or Chinese? And why, when any Muslim decides to detonate a bomb anywhere in the world, let it be London or Bali, calls against Israel are heard?

Is the very same attitude that that led the English to blame the Polish when they were first occupied by Hitler? That is blaming the bombers may lead to more religious hatred, and more bombs, while blaming Israel is safe. After all, no bomb, suicide bomber, airplane hijacking by an Israeli has ever taken place?

Or maybe it’s just the same good old anti-semitism under disguise: “we don’t hate Jews any more; it’s Israel that we hate”?

Once upon a city

2010-02-12T09:39:00.000-08:00

A city
Once so grand
Glorified past
Decay.

Just another city
Like any other.

Having a bad day?

2010-02-10T04:17:00.000-08:00

Always look on the bright side of life

Please don’t send me eCards anymore

2010-02-09T23:49:00.000-08:00

I love to know you think of me
I love to know you care.
I’m happy when you chat with me
In Messenger or mail.
But please don’t send me eCards anymore.

I love to hear about your deeds
I always want to know.
An SMS brighten my day
Even if just Hello.
But please don’t send me eCards anymore

Cause when I get eCard from you
I wasn’t on your mind.
You have a mailing list, I know
And URL you found.

So

Send me single line to say
That you are fine and care.
But please,
Yes Please
I mean it
Don’t send me eCards anymore.

Quotes From The Honest Guru

2010-02-05T15:29:00.001-08:00

Some people are so well organized and planned

...

I am glad I’m not one of them

One of my favorite cartoons

2010-02-04T06:56:00.000-08:00

The Night Market

2010-02-03T15:31:00.000-08:00

When night falls and day-stalls fade away, the night crowd appears and the place is reborn into second life. The smoke rising from torches and open-fires smears the electric lights into aromatic illuminated haze. The hungry crowd get trapped, on their way to reaching the food, by night magicians and story tellers, who, to the sound of drums and other instruments, tell their stories and show their magic.

The night is also the time when women come to life. Some with their families, others as beggars with toddlers trained to cry at will, whenever a tourist comes near. Young women emerge to find love, hiding from preying eyes in the safety of the crowd.

Imagine away the electric lights, and you’d find yourself back at time when the forefather of these very story tellers were telling the very same stories; time when the ancestors of the food hawkers were making the very same food in the very same way. As this place has attracted locals and tourist alike, and made them leave their money behind for generations.

The call of muezzin is sounded from a nearby minaret. The crowed kneel on their knees to pray. Boys are pilfering from the food stalls, just as they have done for a thousand years.

Can women understand science?

2010-02-02T23:45:00.000-08:00

Zen sotry

2010-02-01T23:53:00.000-08:00

Did you hear about the Zen Master who goes
up to the hot dog vendor and says, "Make me
one with everything"?

Quotes From The Honest Guru

2010-01-31T05:37:00.000-08:00

Most people fail at most things most of the time; make failure your friend

Is there anybody out there?

2010-01-30T07:53:00.001-08:00

Is honesty good for relationship?

2010-01-29T21:14:00.000-08:00

A man arrives back home from work. The woman immediately notices he isn’t well (women have this sense) and tries to cheer him up in a womanly way. That is, instead of offering passionate sex and a relaxing massage, she first needs to figure out what’s wrong.

W: how was your day, dear?
M: (groans, while turning the TV on): crap.
W: (being sympathetic): Why? What happened?

Now the man must decide if he is going to be honest (as they made a deal that honesty was above all), or should fake honesty to keep the peace. He decides to be honest.

M: I really don’t feel like talking. Can I just watch football quietly? We can talk tomorrow.

Now the woman, understandably, feels rejected and hurt. She, as well, can be honest, and express her true feelings, or try to keep the peace. Following her own mantra, she chooses honesty.

W: it really irritates me when you come home, turn on the TV and don’t want to talk. Why don’t you want to talk to me?

The man, once again, is facing the same dilemma, but still trying to follow their agreement to be honest.

M: Why don’t we just have sex now? I really don’t feel like talking.

The rest of the evening is easy to imagine. So what went wrong? After all both side fulfilled their agreement to be as honest as possible. However, as long as at least one of them is capable of feeling hurt, rejected or insulted a balance between honesty and keeping the peace should be struck. Otherwise, when honesty wins, relationship will lose.

Effortless Himalayas

2010-01-28T22:39:00.000-08:00

When my friend asked me if I’d join him on a three-week mountain climbing, thrill and anxiety were the emotions I experienced, especially when I learnt that the climb was graded 'extremely strenuous’.

As an untrained middle-aged man who couldn’t run a mile, I was under no illusion about my physical ability to endure such a feat. I also knew that I wouldn’t be able to change this condition in the couple of weeks leading up to the departure. So rather than working on my physical fitness, which I hoped would take care of itself during the adventure – albeit the hard way – it was my mind that needed some intense preparation. I realised that being so unfit, my body wouldn’t cope with my normal mindset of achievement, competitiveness and overcoming challenges. To survive the trek, my attitude would need a major readjustment.

Unlike physical training, my mental training routine (which consisted predominantly of mind games and visualisation exercises) could be done anywhere, anytime – even during the hectic preparation schedule that preceded our departure. So when the eight-seater aircraft was finally dropping onto the steep Himalayan airstrip from which we were to start our trek, 3,000 metres above sea level, effortless trekking was my frame of mind. That is, if it gets hard, slow down; if it’s still hard, rest.

The first day involved a mild, short walk to let the body acclimatise to the altitude and the walking. At night we met other climbers. Those who were also on their way to the mountains were boasting about their preparation, training and fitness; those on the way back were talking about how strenuous (though amazing) their experience had been. Hearing this, I knew, more than ever, that it was my mind that would make this journey either an experience of a lifetime… or a disaster.

The awe-inspiring Himalayan scenery kept changing as altitude increased. The mountains grew taller, the vegetation was replaced by ice-covered cliffs, and as the air got thinner, each move was harder than the one before. But otherwise, the days were all alike: getting up before first light and walking and climbing for the rest of the day. Step by step, up or down, I concentrated on keeping my state of mind. I had nothing to prove to anyone – least of all to myself. Other could be slower or faster, it did not matter. I was continuously conscious of my breathing: never moving too fast to lose my breath; never too fast to miss a sight, a flower or a passing bird. Climbing was not to become a routine, and there was not a single moment when I was unwilling to pause, look around, and feel astonished that I was really there.

As the days passed, fitness did not seem to matter any longer. Even the fittest of climbers were starting to feel the accumulated strain: the minor injuries that had become major irritations without proper rest and care, and the effects of the many too-cold-to-sleep nights. In some way, it seemed as if the fitter the person had been, the more they found it harder later on – as if they were not accustomed to dealing with situations in which their fitness alone was not enough. But there was no choice. With no communication or means of transportation, carrying your body weight was the only way up, and the only way back home.

However, this lack of choice was liberating, and I realised how enslaving my full-of-choice life back home really was. What should I do today? Who do I go out with? Having choices had taken my freedom away. Enslavement to choice is a curse, just like any other enslavement. But in the mountains there were no options: I was moving on because I needed to reach the night’s shelter; I was eating because I was hungry. There was no other option whatsoever.

I had always believed that choice meant control. But in the world’s highest mountains range, which emerged millions of years ago from the sea and will eventually go back there again, what meaning could the term ‘control’ have? Frequent avalanches and rockslides in the surrounding mountains made me aware that at any moment a new name may be added to the hundreds of memorial stones along the way. This, I realised, was no different in the world I left behind, only there I was too vain or preoccupied to notice that control was nothing but an attractive illusion.

Like getting used to carrying a heavy backpack, barely noticing it was there until the moment you remove it; in losing choice I experienced a similar feeling. As nothing was under my control any longer, there was nothing to worry about. My mind could roam free, and I experienced happiness I never knew existed.

All my life I had made plans, set priorities and believed that my ideas were important. But now, without plans and worries, my mind was working like it had never done before. Every sight could trigger a flood of knowledge, some of which I hadn’t accessed since my school days. I recognised the stars I saw at night and remembered how they were formed; I could recall the details of the creation of the Himalayas and the history of its people. I could also easily acquire new memories and remember every turn along the way and every flower I saw. It was as if a new mind was bestowed upon me.

And then, half-way up, my perception changed. Sensations were floating through my mind without touching me. There was no difference between the brightly coloured rose finches pecking the snow patches in search of food, or the smell of the smoke coming from burning yak manure in a nearby village. Words like ‘beautiful’, ‘magnificent’ or ‘ugly’ lost their meaning, and the bright white glacier above my head was no more amazing than the little pebble at my feet. How can I say that one is more magnificent than the other?

I was still the same person with the same body. I could feel the cold breeze biting my face; I was not immune to severe diarrhoea or sinusitis. Discomfort was still discomfort; pain was pain, but it didn’t bother me and I didn’t suffer. I still got hungry and needed food, but hunger was not suffering, it was just the need of food.

It was an experience I couldn’t find words to convey to those around me, who had noticed the change. “If it’s only the next step that is important,” they pried, “why do you insist on reaching the peak, and not simply stay here?”

Was it just another illusion that it didn’t matter, one of so many lies you convince yourself to be true? I had to know, and I decided to stop, and the very last mile before reaching the pinnacle – the ultimate goal – I had to know, maybe for the first time in my life, how it would feel not to reach my destination.

The others kept climbing up and I stayed. There was no feeling of missing out on anything when they were having the view from the top while I was looking at the rocks and moss at the bottom. There was no jealousy when they returned, told their stories. The magnificent view they saw and my sitting a few hundred feet below were all the same to me. It made no difference whatsoever.

Then we all turned back and started the long descend – one step at a time.

Time has passed and the intensity of the experience has diminished. In some sense, life back home is still as it had always been: I still make plans and strive to achieve my goals, my imperfect memory is back, and so are my old mental abilities. But something subtle, barely noticeable, yet fundamental has changed. The big ancient tree in the back yard is still beautiful, but no more than the weeds in the pavement. I enjoy looking at both just the same. I still try to avoid failing, but there is no pain when I do; there is no feeling of urgency or struggle, even when urgency is required. Yet, in some mysterious way, I now achieve more with less – more than ever before.

The Cuckoo & The Nightingale

2010-01-25T19:49:00.000-08:00

A woman I knew once confessed that at times, whenever she becomes horny for no apparent reason, she gets a glimpse of how men feel most of the time, and sympathies with them. This is a novel confession, as many women would simply blame men for being what they are, rather than what women believe they should be.

But this is not merely a problem of men and women. How often do we criticize others, or think they are stupid or useless without trying to understand their viewpoint, feeling and thinking?

Under normal conditions, you may not be able to understand how anyone can be gay, enjoy being an accountant, or goes on a suicide mission. But have you ever tried to truly imagine yourself in their shoes, and see the world the way they see it? You will then discover that your own point of view may be just as wrong as everyone else’s.

The nightingale does not resent
The cuckoo’s simple song.
But you,
If I don’t think like you,
You tell me that I am wrong.

(old Zen poem)