It's been a while, so I'd better post something...

Here are some thoughts on virtual reality vs. a natural higher state of consciousness... yes it is mostly questions:

The race between virtual reality (ala matrix) and the discovery of the physical world being better.

Team 1: Dropping into a virtual reality (i.e. focusing the human experience purely on the brain and maintaining the body as the support system for shared conscious through tech). Techno-shared-conscious.

Team 2: Uncovering the subconscious might allow us to have shared conscious without technology (this would probably be an evolutionary jump). But will having a man-made artificial reality accelerate or cut-off the next step of the pure brain experience? Which would be better? An understanding of the subconscious would be required in order to create the artificial bond through technology, but we run into a chicken and the egg scenario where we are forcing acclimation through the assumed paradigm that we use to create the techno-shared-conscious.

Is there a shared conscious? Shared experiences create intersections in time between individuals. What is conscious?: the ability to process critically within a personal context. With a shared or hive structure, the context needs to shift to the group. What issues and thoughts are unique to a group conscious? What are the potential benefits to a group conscious? As individuals are we blind to facets of reality that can only been seen by a shared conscious? If so, how can individuals "create" a virtual reality with the purpose of transcending to, or just seeing, new facets of reality. Is there a way to enhance reality through the virtual? (what are the definitions of reality and virtual)


What is the interaction between humans and machines? Will this be a progressive bridge, or the ultimate block to achieving shared conscious? Will the mechanism for a techno-shared-conscious virtual reality divert us from a natural evolutionary path to shared conscious?

If so, people might have to pick a path which may lead to a rift between the techno-shared-conscious & natural shared conscious groups.

Must Reads:

As I have mentioned principles of Democratic Capitalism a few times, I should probably offer some primary sources for my opinions on the matter.

First: A favorite book that has been with me on so many travels that it's a bit moldy. Ironically, when I was younger and ignorant of the issues that, to me, would become so lucid, Michael Novak joined my family for dinner in Washington.

Am I missing something?

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

A quote from this article.
Encourages Violence?

In this instance, the definition of intolerance:

–noun -lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

What ever happened to debate? Why must everything resolve to the threat of violence so quickly? Obviously the media is fanning the flames for its own gain, and it LOVES this hypocritical and idiotic quote. Media strives for the zero-sum game, and continues to over simplify things in order to make all seem sensational.

The Pope is arguing that the spread of religion through violence is wrong. Jihad exists, and that can not be denied, but I also know that all of my Muslim friends are not terrorists, and are incredibly kind and endearing. Yes the Crusades did take place, but that was during a time of mass-ignorance. Is there a resurgence in ignorance? If so, it's probably due to mass media. Not only are they bombarding us with vapid video bits, but they are doing so in such a way (read: 20 second to 2 minutes news bites) that is actually negatively impacting our intelligence.

Those who threaten violence as a solution are truly desperate, and those who promote violence for profit are despicable. The media needs to stop focusing on the minority view, even though it is the most "entertaining."