Sunday, 2 February 2014
Monday, 27 January 2014
Author Interview|| Laura Michelle Thomas
Laura Michelle Thomas is an author and professional copywriter and ghostwriter. She has been mentoring young writers in workshops, camps and courses since 2007. More recently Laura formed a communications company through which she fosters the development of young writers worldwide through quality contests, conferences, blogging, books, and educational resources. She has been kind enough to give us an interview about her book Polly Wants to Be a Writer: The Junior Authors Guide to Writing and Getting Published.
The Speculative Daily: Can you tell us what this book is about and who you wrote it for?
Laura Michelle Thomas: Polly Wants to Be a Writer is a YA fantasy novel based on the materials I used to teach an eight-week short story workshop for young writers in which the students go from having no ideas on the first day to a fully polished short story of no more than 2,000 words that is ready to submit to a publisher. Several of my students have gone on to publish the stories they wrote during this class, and what is most helpful to them is walking with me step-by-step through the writing process: from idea to formatting and submission. Readers will be able to do the same as Polly, a fifteen-year-old wannabe writer struggles with the same issues.
TSD: What inspired you to write your book?
Laura: Not what, who. I talk to aspiring young writers, writing teachers, and parents with talented literary kids every day. Everyone needs realistic advice about becoming a professional writer. I simply cannot help them all individually, so I wrote a book that will.
TSD: What was your biggest obstacle during the writing process? How did you overcome it?
Laura: Time and space. Writing a novel on speculation (which means that you work on your book for almost a year and have no idea if you will sell a single copy) is very risky, so I always put my paid writing work first. I had to make a choice this year to put my novel first. I have to remake that decision every day. Hiring a talented team of young freelancers to help me serve my copywriting and ghostwriting customers was a really smart thing to do.
TSD: What advice do you have for writers who are thinking about writing a novel?
Laura:If you are serious about getting a book into reader’s hands, be realistic. Are you really ready for a major project? Have you had success publishing and getting paid for smaller pieces of work? If not, try that first. However much time and effort you think it is going to be, multiply that by ten. Also, be sure that you understand the different stages of the writing process. They are all different and will challenge you in different ways. Knowing your inner dragon (that voice in your head that tells you that your writing sucks) and how to use him will truly help if you do decide to tackle a big project like a novel.
You can buy Laura's book 'Polly Wants to Be a Writer' from
Amazon.com|| Amazon.co.uk
IndieBound|| BookDespository
Sunday, 19 January 2014
Amazing|| Photography
To see the full sized image click here.
Sunday, 12 January 2014
Author Interview|| Michelle Sagara West
Michelle Michiko Sagara is a Japanese-Canadian author of fantasy literature, active since the early 1990s. She has published as Michelle Sagara, as Michelle West and as Michelle Sagara West. She lives in Toronto and is employed part-time at Bakka. She was generous enough to take time out of her busy schedule to answer our interview questions.
-----------------
We thank you Michelle, for taking out the time to talk to us about your journey as an author. There were some great tips for aspiring writers.
Our favourite from Michelle's books are the Chronicles of Elantra series (yes all nine of them !) and next in line to read is "Silence" book 1 of ' The Queen of the Dead' series. Reviews for Cast in Shadow is going to be put up soon, so stay posted.
The Speculative Daily: What inspired you to start writing?
Michelle Sagara West: Like most writers, my inspiration for writing is a direct result of my love of reading. Books were like entire pocket worlds for me as a child; I loved them. I loved the stories and I loved the words. Sometimes I had to struggle with the words to understand and appreciate the nuances they contained--but unlocking them always opened up new avenues for me as a reader, and new ways of seeing both myself and the world around me.
I wanted to write books at a very young age--I thought, at the time, books were all made by hand, and I was frustrated because my writing and drawing didn't look like a real book.
But eventually I understood off-set printing, and printing presses, and publication, and at that time, I started to write, because I wanted to tell a story that readers would fall in love with, just as I’d fallen in love with the stories of others.
TSD: What were the major hurdles in getting your novel published and publicised?
Michelle: The major hurdles for me were writing and revising a novel. This isn’t as simple an answer as it at first seems. Writing for yourself is a simple act of creation; it’s not so much an act of communication. You understand how you think; you understand who your characters are. But when you’re writing for other readers you need to make certain that some of that knowledge is actually on the page. Too much, and it slows the story down; too little and it becomes confusing and possibly even seems pointless.
But learning to write is very individual, because literally no two published writers I know work the same way. Each of us has a process that works for us. Some are heavy outliners. Some can’t outline at all. Some write long, detailed character sketches; some learn about the characters as they write them. There’s no right way to write a novel; there’s only the way you’ve discovered that works for your novels - and so much of that is stumbling around in the dark looking for glimmers of luminescence. But that was the hard part, for me. In 1991, when my book was published, publishers accepted unsolicited (i.e. unagented) books, so I sent my book to Del Rey books. The editor liked my writing, but didn't like some elements of the book, and asked to see anything else I had either previously written or would write in the future.
There’s no right way to write a novel; there’s only the way you’ve discovered that works for your novels - and so much of that is stumbling around in the dark looking for glimmers of luminescence.
TSD: Do you base your characters on real life people?
Michelle: I don’t base most of my characters on real life people, in part because some of the stuff the characters go through is so personal it could wind up being awkward. And I don’t really do character sketches before I start to write. This doesn’t mean that there’s anything at all wrong with character sketches. Some people find them necessary--and writing is really all about finding your own process.
TSD: How do you deal with writers block?
Michelle: Writer’s block is interesting. Until I started working on two projects simultaneously, I used to think that I had stretches in which my creative brain was on strike. But I discovered that while it might take me 6 hours to write 400 words in one book, I could switch projects and write 1500 words in two hours, and I began to realize that sometimes the slowdown - or even the dead stop - was very much based in individual projects. Sometimes I can’t move forward because there’s something wrong with what I’ve just done, and I’m too close to it to see it.
When I first started writing, I couldn’t have worked on two projects simultaneously. But the way through, for me, was to set a minimum number of words that I had to write during a writing day--and to write those, no matter how long it took. This was probably as much fun as it sounds.
Michelle Sagara West: Like most writers, my inspiration for writing is a direct result of my love of reading. Books were like entire pocket worlds for me as a child; I loved them. I loved the stories and I loved the words. Sometimes I had to struggle with the words to understand and appreciate the nuances they contained--but unlocking them always opened up new avenues for me as a reader, and new ways of seeing both myself and the world around me.
I wanted to write books at a very young age--I thought, at the time, books were all made by hand, and I was frustrated because my writing and drawing didn't look like a real book.
But eventually I understood off-set printing, and printing presses, and publication, and at that time, I started to write, because I wanted to tell a story that readers would fall in love with, just as I’d fallen in love with the stories of others.
TSD: What were the major hurdles in getting your novel published and publicised?
Michelle: The major hurdles for me were writing and revising a novel. This isn’t as simple an answer as it at first seems. Writing for yourself is a simple act of creation; it’s not so much an act of communication. You understand how you think; you understand who your characters are. But when you’re writing for other readers you need to make certain that some of that knowledge is actually on the page. Too much, and it slows the story down; too little and it becomes confusing and possibly even seems pointless.
But learning to write is very individual, because literally no two published writers I know work the same way. Each of us has a process that works for us. Some are heavy outliners. Some can’t outline at all. Some write long, detailed character sketches; some learn about the characters as they write them. There’s no right way to write a novel; there’s only the way you’ve discovered that works for your novels - and so much of that is stumbling around in the dark looking for glimmers of luminescence. But that was the hard part, for me. In 1991, when my book was published, publishers accepted unsolicited (i.e. unagented) books, so I sent my book to Del Rey books. The editor liked my writing, but didn't like some elements of the book, and asked to see anything else I had either previously written or would write in the future.
There’s no right way to write a novel; there’s only the way you’ve discovered that works for your novels - and so much of that is stumbling around in the dark looking for glimmers of luminescence.
TSD: Do you base your characters on real life people?
Michelle: I don’t base most of my characters on real life people, in part because some of the stuff the characters go through is so personal it could wind up being awkward. And I don’t really do character sketches before I start to write. This doesn’t mean that there’s anything at all wrong with character sketches. Some people find them necessary--and writing is really all about finding your own process.
TSD: How do you deal with writers block?
Michelle: Writer’s block is interesting. Until I started working on two projects simultaneously, I used to think that I had stretches in which my creative brain was on strike. But I discovered that while it might take me 6 hours to write 400 words in one book, I could switch projects and write 1500 words in two hours, and I began to realize that sometimes the slowdown - or even the dead stop - was very much based in individual projects. Sometimes I can’t move forward because there’s something wrong with what I’ve just done, and I’m too close to it to see it.
When I first started writing, I couldn’t have worked on two projects simultaneously. But the way through, for me, was to set a minimum number of words that I had to write during a writing day--and to write those, no matter how long it took. This was probably as much fun as it sounds.
-----------------
We thank you Michelle, for taking out the time to talk to us about your journey as an author. There were some great tips for aspiring writers.
Our favourite from Michelle's books are the Chronicles of Elantra series (yes all nine of them !) and next in line to read is "Silence" book 1 of ' The Queen of the Dead' series. Reviews for Cast in Shadow is going to be put up soon, so stay posted.
Click on any of the following links to buy book 1 of Chronicles of Elantra :
Want us to interview your favourite author? leave a comment
Friday, 10 January 2014
Some Awesome Libraries|| You Don't See These Everywhere
This one is our favourite because of its unique design, one you could imagine to be similar to Great Library of Alexandria. It is home to some of the world's most ancient manuscripts written in different languages of which Greek and Arabic are prominent. Due to its religious importance a small town has grown around it.
2) Centrale Biblotheek- Amsterdam
Giving the warm effect of a perfect library, Centrale Bibliotheek is the place to relax amidst books of whatever genre you like. Strange, really, that such designs aren't more common since it seems so fitting for a library.
3) Stuttgart City Library- Germany
Wow,this is one cold library! Even the books and visitors don't bring any colour to this 'White Wonder'.The neutral theme and intense brightness lower the ratings of this one otherwise the sheer amount of books in this 5 storey building is simply amazing. It has a grand feeling to it that few buildings can claim to match.
4) Library of Congress- USA
Boasting a collection of over 32 million books in some 470 languages, the Library of Congress is one of the largest libraries ever. Apart from printed material much of the library's data is stored electronically. A copy of 'Old King Cole' measuring 1/25"x1/25" has such tiny pages that they can only be turned over with the help of a needle.
Can you imagine how awesome it must be to walk through this room. Books as far you can see, crammed in their shelves just waiting for you to pick them up. Ahh...Bliss. Housing 0.2 million of the main library's 6 million books, it is part of Ireland's largest library. With marble busts, thousands of rare books and an ancient harp, it is a major tourist attraction.
The Jedi archives in the Star Wars movie bears close resemblance to the long room but officials declined to take any legal action.
5) Stockholm Public Library- Sweden
With tens of thousands of books and even more audio books, CDs and sound recordings, the library is one of Stockholm's most notable buildings. In the 'International Library' section, containing material in other languages, Arabic, Persian, Spanish and Russian are the most notable languages. With a friendly, self-serve atmosphere, you could spend the entire day just looking at the books.
“In a good bookroom you feel in some mysterious way that you are absorbing the wisdom contained in all the books through your skin, without even opening them.” - Mark Twain
Saturday, 11 May 2013
Dialogue in Consciousness || Understanding Reality ( Well, trying to, at any rate)
What is reality? Is it an illusion, a creation of sensory perception, a projection of our minds which has no existence of its own. Or is it independent of human experience. This has been one of the foremost questions I have had for a while now and have sought to theorize and frame answers now and again. Not that any possible explanations can be verified due to the nature of the subject.
The following is an article I found while aimlessly searching the net and was astounded by its relevance and insight. I don't agree a hundred percent with this but still, some of the explanations within this piece match closely with my own personal theories so here goes enjoy:
This piece is taken from the following link:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/Dialogue.htm
The following is an article I found while aimlessly searching the net and was astounded by its relevance and insight. I don't agree a hundred percent with this but still, some of the explanations within this piece match closely with my own personal theories so here goes enjoy:
Dialogue in Consciousness
1. What is the difference between a concept and Reality?
a. A concept is a thought of a separate object together with a name or identifier of the object.
b. Thoughts begin to arise in early childhood. The infant's mind contains few concepts whereas the sage's mind sometimes may contain many thoughts but the sage always sees directly that separation is an illusion.
c. Without thoughts, there are no objects (e.g., in dreamless sleep, under anesthesia, or in samadhi) because, by definition, an object is the thought of it.
d. Reality is not a thought. Rather, It is absence of separation.
2. What is meant by true and untrue concepts?
a. A belief is a concept which contains the concept of attachment.
b. A belief that cannot be verified by direct seeing is always subject to attack by a counter-belief. Therefore, it must be constantly reinforced by repetition of the belief.
c. Since Reality is absence of separation, It cannot be perceived. Therefore, concepts cannot describe Reality (but they can be true, see g and h below).
d. Example: A material object by definition is separate from other material objects. Therefore, material objects are not real. The belief that material objects are real is constantly reinforced by materialistic culture, and is sustained only by a failure to see the distinction between objects and Reality.
e. Although concepts cannot describe Reality, they can point to Reality.
f. A pointer is an invitation to see directly the distinction between an object and Reality.
g. If a concept asserts or implies the reality of any object, it is untrue. If it negates the reality of an object, it is true (but not a description of Reality). A true concept can be a useful pointer to Reality.
h. Example: The concept that material objects are not real is true, and is a pointer to Reality.
3. What is the world (the universe)?
a. The world (the universe) is the collection of objects consisting of the body-mind and all other objects. The world appears to exist in time and space.
b. However, time and space are nothing but concepts. They are not real.
c. Time is the concept of change. Since all objects change, all objects are temporal concepts.
d. Space is the concept of extension (size and shape). Since all objects are extended in space, all objects are spatial concepts.
4. What are polar, or dual, pairs of concepts?
a. Thought always results in inseparable pairs of concepts (dual pairs) because every thought has an opposite.
b. Reality is apparently split into dual pairs by thought. However, no thought is real since Reality cannot be split.
c. The result of apparently splitting Reality into dual pairs of concepts is called duality.
d. The two concepts of a pair are always inseparable because the merger of the opposites will cancel the pair.
e. Example: "I"/not-"I" is a dual pair of concepts. If the "I" and not-"I" merge, neither concept remains.
5. What is Awareness/Presence?
a. Awareness/Presence is not a concept or object. It is what is aware of all concepts and objects.
b. It does not change and It has no extension so It is time-less and space-less.
c. However, It is said to be space-like because all concepts and objects are said to appear in It.
d. The terms “Awareness/Presence” and “Reality” are equivalent conceptual pointers.
6. What are We?
a. We are not a concept or object because We are what is aware of all concepts and objects.
b. Therefore, We are Awareness/Presence.
c. Because the body-mind and the world are objects, they appear in Us--We do not appear in them.
d. We do not appear in the body so We are not contained or restricted by it.
7. What is existence?
a. An object is said to exist if it is believed to be separate from Awareness/Presence. It then also appears to be separate from other objects.
b. Existence is only apparent because Awareness/Presence always remains unsplit.
c. The apparently real existence of objects is called illusion (Maya).
d. The sage, being only Awareness/Presence and knowing only Awareness/Presence, knows that he/she is not separate from anything.
8. What is the "I"-object?
a. When an "I"-concept is believed to be separate from Awareness/Presence, it is said to exist as an "I"-object.
b. However, clear seeing shows that there is no "I"-object.
c. We are not objects and We do not exist as objects. We are Reality (Awareness/Presence).
9. What is it that makes other objects seem to exist?
a. Whenever the "I"-object appears to arise, the not-"I" object also appears to arise.
b. Then, desire for completion also arises, including the desire for the not-"I" object.
c. But, because fear/desire form a dual pair, whenever desire arises, fear also arises, including the fear of the not-"I" object.
d. Thus, the not-"I" object seems real.
e. Thought also splits the apparent not-"I" object into a multitude of apparent objects, and fear/desire makes them all seem real.
10. What is the true nature of all objects?
a. All apparent objects arise in Awareness/Presence.
b. Because physical space and time are apparent objects, they also arise in Awareness/Presence.
c. No apparent object is separate from Awareness/Presence. Thus, all apparent objects consist of Awareness/Presence.
d. Objects are not real as objects but they are real as Awareness/Presence.
e. Awareness/Presence welcomes/loves all apparent objects that appear in It.
11. What is the personal sense of doership?
a. Along with illusory "I"-object, arises also the sense of personal doership.
b. However, since there is no "I"-object, there is no doer, no thinker, no chooser, and no observer.
c. Therefore, "we" have no control. Thus, whatever happens, happens. Whatever doesn't happen, doesn't happen.
12. If there is no doer, how do things happen?
a. Everything that happens is only an arising in Awareness/Presence.
b. Only one arising is present at any moment. No other arisings are ever present to affect the arising that is present.
c. Since no arising is present to affect the arising that is present, there can be no law of cause-and-effect.
d. The concept of causality, i.e., that one event causes another event, is only an arising in Awareness/Presence.
e. Since causality is only a concept, "I" can never do anything.
f. Because "I" can do nothing, neither can "I" choose. Thus, free will is nothing but an empty concept.
13. What is suffering?
a. The feeling of being separate is an arising that carries with it a sense of shame for feeling isolated, alienated, lonely, and disconnected.
b. The sense of free will is an arising that carries with it the feeling of personal responsibility for "my" past and "my" future.
c. The sense of personal responsibility is an arising that carries with it guilt and regret for "my" past and worry and anxiety for "my" future.
14. What is awakening (enlightenment)?
a. Awakening is the realization that I am not separate and I have never been separate. Therefore there is no shame.
b. Awakening carries with it the realization that I do nothing and I have never done anything. Therefore, there is no regret, guilt, worry, or anxiety.
c. Awakening is the awareness that Reality, which is what I am, has never been affected by any concepts.
d. Awakening is the awareness that my true nature includes a sense of Welcoming/Love.
15. What can we do to awaken?
a. Since direct seeing shows that there is no doer, there is nothing that the "individual" can do to awaken.
b. Since awakening transcends time, no practice that occurs in time can bring about awakening. Thus most practices do not bring about awakening.
c. However, direct seeing can bring about awakening because direct seeing is timeless seeing.
16. Does this mean that there is no hope for the sufferer?
a. Definitely not. There are many practices that will lead to less suffering. However, like all other actions, they are never done by a doer since there is no doer. Therefore, "we" cannot do them. If they happen, they happen. If not, they don’t.
b. Example: To see that there is no “I”, look inward for it and see that there is none. See also that everything that happens, including all thoughts and feelings, happens spontaneously so there can be no doer.
c. Example: To see that no object exists, look and see that all objects are nothing but arisings in Awareness/Presence. Then, look and see that no object could ever bring "you" peace. Finally, see that nothing can affect You who are Awareness/Presence/Presence Itself.
17. What else can we do?
a. We can go inward and downward and feel the breath. This takes us out of the head and the thinking mind and puts us in the body and the senses.
b. We can practice mindfulness and see that our attachments and aversions are nothing but arisings in Awareness/Presence.
c. We can become aware that all objects are nothing but arisings in Awareness/Presence and therefore cannot affect Us.
d. We can see that there can be no suffering in pure Awareness/Presence.
e. We can trust Awareness/Presence, which is our true nature.
f. We can rest in Awareness/Presence, which is our home.
This piece is taken from the following link:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/Dialogue.htm
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
The Holographic Universe: Reality or Fantasy? You decide
Does Objective Reality exist or not? Maybe the following discussion by Michael Talbot will shed some light on this quandary.
In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.
To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.
When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.
Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.
The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.
A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.
This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.
To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration.
Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side.
As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them.
When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.
This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment.
According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.
Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.
In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.
The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky.
Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.
In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order.
At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.
What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from bluü whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."
Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".
Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality.
Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.
In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.
Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.
Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.
Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through ome gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly.
Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.
The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.
An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.
Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability.
Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.
Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support.
It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected.
Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "osmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.
But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?
Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.
We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.
This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.
Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.
In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.
It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.
In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head.
What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal.
The woman's experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate.
Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations.
In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual's consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations "transpersonal experiences", and in the late '60s he helped found a branch of psychology called "transpersonal psychology" devoted entirely to their study.
Although Grof's newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm.
As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.
The holographic paradigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain -- as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical.
Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body.
Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because in the holographic domain of thought images are ultimately as real as "reality".
Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson discribes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession.
Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection.
Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected.
If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson's are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality.
What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams.
Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly make sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry.
Whether Bohm and Pribram's holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect's findings "indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
