Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Three Laws of Robotics
Primarily introduced through the 1942 short story "Runaround"by Isaac Asimov
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Love is..?
Originally published in Huffington Post (feel free to comment there or here):
Krishnamurti defines love as the intense will, resolve, and determination for liberation from samsara (the round of births and deaths), and for union with God. And Charles Eisenstein, author of Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition, defines love in one instance as "the expansion of the self to include others" in the viral YouTube video "The Revolution is Love" (which I highly recommend viewing in its 5 minute entirety below). Tying these two definitions is a love predicated on the dissolution of the self, the me, the I, a "perfect unselfishness" (as Krishnamurti called it)---whether it be in the service of and gifting to others or the will to be one with God. It is interesting then, when we look at the cultural manifestation of romantic love---in movies, music, poetry--- that we would be compelled to possess and own the other, or a depend on the other to provide that love one must build within to gift to others..."Baby I want you," "I can't quit you," "I need you," "Please come back to me, I NEED you. I am alone without you," etc...These "yous" that are NEEDED by "me" are usually humans, sometimes, as in the case of Rumi, Hafez, and others, they have been metaphors for that will to be one with God. And as one of my spiritual guides reminds us "Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love." So what is the appeal of associating love with possession and ownership? How have we come to be compelled with this application of "love"? Can this even be love?
There are no shortage of definitions of love, so why did I think to put the two in conversation with each other? For me, these two definitions do not just create a crossroads of meaning when intersected but more so, the saliency of the connection is that one is a mircocosm standing in for the macrocosm. How can we hope to perfect that consummate unselfishness to merge with One, if we can't first practice that with other humans? Why should we even be qualified to receive to the peace, love, mercy and grace of God, if we cannot even be that for the other? Krishnamutri closes his section on love (one of the four qualifications on the Pathway) by asserting, "For if you yearn to be one with God, it is not for your own sake; it is that you may be a channel through which his love may flow to reach your fellows."
Krishnamurti defines love as the intense will, resolve, and determination for liberation from samsara (the round of births and deaths), and for union with God. And Charles Eisenstein, author of Sacred Economics: Money, Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition, defines love in one instance as "the expansion of the self to include others" in the viral YouTube video "The Revolution is Love" (which I highly recommend viewing in its 5 minute entirety below). Tying these two definitions is a love predicated on the dissolution of the self, the me, the I, a "perfect unselfishness" (as Krishnamurti called it)---whether it be in the service of and gifting to others or the will to be one with God. It is interesting then, when we look at the cultural manifestation of romantic love---in movies, music, poetry--- that we would be compelled to possess and own the other, or a depend on the other to provide that love one must build within to gift to others..."Baby I want you," "I can't quit you," "I need you," "Please come back to me, I NEED you. I am alone without you," etc...These "yous" that are NEEDED by "me" are usually humans, sometimes, as in the case of Rumi, Hafez, and others, they have been metaphors for that will to be one with God. And as one of my spiritual guides reminds us "Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love." So what is the appeal of associating love with possession and ownership? How have we come to be compelled with this application of "love"? Can this even be love?
There are no shortage of definitions of love, so why did I think to put the two in conversation with each other? For me, these two definitions do not just create a crossroads of meaning when intersected but more so, the saliency of the connection is that one is a mircocosm standing in for the macrocosm. How can we hope to perfect that consummate unselfishness to merge with One, if we can't first practice that with other humans? Why should we even be qualified to receive to the peace, love, mercy and grace of God, if we cannot even be that for the other? Krishnamutri closes his section on love (one of the four qualifications on the Pathway) by asserting, "For if you yearn to be one with God, it is not for your own sake; it is that you may be a channel through which his love may flow to reach your fellows."
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Deepak Chopra on "Science, Consciousness & God"
DEEP.
"Consciousness explains physical laws but physical laws do not explain consciousness."
"Selective attention and intention is an attribute of consciousness."
"What is the most primal experience of life that we have? It is our subjective experience of reality. and this reality is within consciousness."
"Pure consciousness is infinite possibilities."
"Consciousness explains physical laws but physical laws do not explain consciousness."
"Selective attention and intention is an attribute of consciousness."
"What is the most primal experience of life that we have? It is our subjective experience of reality. and this reality is within consciousness."
"Pure consciousness is infinite possibilities."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)