blethers

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Misha's Bell

I have two blogs to do today, one based on a dream I had this morning (which shows what is going on when I am blogging, and how my blogging has developed since it started about a month ago) and which I will deal with later on joan-dreams.blogspot.com, and this one, which is inspired by a review, from the Radio Times, which 'spoke to me' during my morning perusal of said magazine. The review reads:

...the light-hearted tinkling if Misha the penguin's bell is welcome amid the dark happenings of Andrei Kurkov's post-soviet satire. ..... Viktor is a failing novelist who agrees to write a series of obituaries for a crooked newspaper editor. The twist is that the editor's chosen subjects are not dead .... so Viktor and Misha are plunged into the Ukraines mafia-terrorised underworld, with its cast of unwitting criminals, and less-than-innocent victims. The beauty .... lies in Viktor's deadpan narration and the tinkle that signals Misha's enigmatic thoughts. ..... the listener is left perplexed: is Misha-the-penguin the most human character after all?

Well, first off: one of the things I like most about South Africa is the TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION committee, and one of the things I like most about the Soviet Union is that, when a journalist asked a resident, not long released from the gulags, of a block of flats how he could bare to live next door to one of the ex-gulag guards who had kept him incarcerated, he got the reply: 'there but for the grace of God....'. There is a lot of tolerance and humanity in those two countries.

But, why that review spoke to me has more to do with why and how I am writing these blogs: I am a failed novelist! Quite honestly, if I could bury myself in a world of fiction and fantasy right now, I would do so and these blogs would not get written. But I can't. I have not been able to find it in my to write a novel, not by the conventional means, at any rate .... all that preparation and organisation and locking yourself away from the world ... can't keep it up!

So, instead, here I am, writing obituaries for subjects that are not yet dead .... and running scared of the mafia, the unwitting criminals, and the less-than-innocent victims! And what subjects might those be? Well, so far I have had a go at the likes of scientists, academics, the art establishment etc etc, but I have run scared of mentioning the BIG J, associated with the BIG H, ... in fact, it might be true to say that I have so far gone for the unwitting criminals, and avoided the less-than-innocent victims. There are a hell of a lot of people in this world who make a living out of being 'victims' .... and who are the bigest victims, who has suffered more than anyone else in the history of suffering?

I might profitably, at this stage, go off tangentially, and talk of the nature of the self-fulfilling prophecy. The fact is that people who are paranoid get picked on and that just seems to justify the paranoia, and so .....

The situation is best understood by refering to the natural world. In the natural world, prey animals get 'picked on' by hunters because they BEHAVE LIKE PREY ANIMALS. So deer, for example get hunted. But, SKUNKS and the like do not get hunted because they DO NOT EXPECT TO BE. You might think skunks escape because of the stink, but no animal needs to be attacked by a skunk in order to learn to avoid it. No, it is the skunks sublime unconcern that is its protection. ... so with people, if you believe people will attack you, you behave like a prey animal and YOU GET ATTACKED.

OK, so here goes ... THE BIG J ... you may have guessed already, but if you haven't, I refer to the Jews. I mean, is there any race of group of people that has been so picked on in the history of the world? I think not! And what do they do about it? There are whole organisations trying to protect the Jews from being picked on, there is a whole industry built on keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive so that it will never happen again. Well, sorry folks, but all that is just ensuring that IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN.

Having said which, I myself am an ex-schizophrenic, and there are now whole organisations devoted to protecting people with mental health problems --- in fact, we live in a world of 'protection rackets'! My response to being a lunatic is contained in another blog, titled: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE SCHIZOPHRENIA, and so, with my declared short attention span (I put it down to having suffered from schizophrenia!?), instead of wittering on about skunks, and how they teach us how not to need protecting, I refer readers to that blog which says the same thing, but at greater length and in more detail.
It is in: joan-well.blogspot.com

Saturday, October 28, 2006

or is it a computer that thinks its a woman?

From all I have written in these blogs, it should be no surprise to learn that I read tarot and fortunes cards and the like. I attach no special significance to these, because, as I have said, everything in life is interpretable, so dreams, life events, the book I am reading, fortune cards .... it's all one.

However, I have recorded and transcribed onto one of my other blogspots (joan-dreams.blogspot.com) a fortune card reading I did with my sister, as I think it provides a beautiful illustration of the points I have been making about the relative stupidity of computers.

Anyone reading that transcription with a dictionary in one hand, and a copy of USAGE AND ABUSAGE in the other hand, would be appalled .... lexicographically and grammatically it is a total mess. BUT, on the I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN scale, it reaches top marks and keeps on climbing. This means that a computer would never be able to make sense of what it is about; it takes something of the sophistication of the human mind for that.

In fact, some readers, I have no doubt, might feel some sympathy for the computer! The HUMAN fact is, that it was a LIVE PERFORMANCE, and I spoke to my sister IN HER OWN LINGO. Both these facts make the reading of the blog more difficult, but then, if you were there, I would speak to you in your lingo, and the understanding would be easy peasy. It might take me a while to find out what is your lingo, but I'd be watching your face as I spoke to see how you were responding to me, and I'd be listening to how you were talking, expressing yourself, to me, and with good communication and complete understanding as the goal, I'd be adjusting the way I spoke to you until a satisfactory level of understanding was being achieved. Then, if I recorded the result of such a card reading, it would be as messy as the one I have transcribed already, but DIFFERENT, adjusted to the understanding of a different person. Now, that is humans for you, do you know what I mean?

Thursday, October 26, 2006

The woman who thinks she is a computer

I had a most interesting visit from my friend, Jane, today. The conversation got round to the supposed sighting of lynx near her home, a number of years ago now.


At first the conversation centred around whether or not the sightings were true, or real. To my knowledge, and to the knowledge of any scientists who have studied the local flora and fauna, lynx have been extinct in this part of the world for a very long time. I was taking the part of querying the truth of the allegations, and my friend was doing her best to maintain absolutely that they were true, and especially as she claimed pesonal involvement. She scoffed at scientists: what do they know. Local knowledge is everything.


Since I have been going to great lengths to back personal experience over the democracy of science, my role in this dialogue had me feeling a bit uneasy. The fact is, that I know this friend makes it up as she goes along. Yet, if I am to claim that personal experience must take precedence over scientific measurements, how could I argue with her!


Well, ultimately, I arrived at the 'point' of this experience: If, as I claim, the Que gives us what we want/need, and I am condeming science, how can I justify the Que giving us science? Well, my friend justified it for me: people have no allegiance to truth. For reasons that I will discuss below, they all, scientists included, when the can get away with it, make it up as they go along. Just like Jane, they will deny the thing they said two seconds ago, they will claim they saw a flying pig, and then get angry if you suggest they might be liars. In such a world, an Alice in Wonderland world, how do you create any common ground, how do you maintain any sort of agreement on what constitutes reality? You do what the Que did: you insist that only that which can be verified independently of any human interference, and that which can be verified by any human being who choses to try, is acceptable as true reality. So, that is why we have science.


So, to get back to my friend Jane. Jane likes to be the centre of attention. Jane gets angry and upset if she is not the centre of attention. Jane's conversation is not really about anything in particular. It is a performance by Lady Jane, and all present are expected to behave like an adoring audience. So all of Jane's conversation is a sequence of tactics designed to, either maintian her hold on her audience, or to wrest it back from anyone else who might have gained centre stage momentarily.


One way she achieves her end ie argument. When she arrives at my house, she starts talking about the journey, what she had for lunch, and on and on about things no-one, not even herself, could be interested in, and everything dealt with at great length, the point being that this will go on for as long as the visit, if she has her way, and I have the tolerance to listen. But, should I interupt, an argument will ensue. It will appear from nowhere, plucked out of the blue, but it is the main, though not the only, tactic she has for getting hold of things again.


Now then, this is all very damaging for my friend, though, of course, she is oblivious.
In the first place, it prevents any communication with anybody.
In the second place, she has damaged her abilities to think, and to learn ..... this is why I say she thinks she is a computer. She has so damaged her mind that it operates at the level of a computer, and she thinks that is normal. She has absolutely no conception that anything else is possible.


I used the word 'absolutely', which leads into a deeper illustration of what I mean. I was trying to explain to her that some behaviour of my mother's had been very good for me as a child. My words were: "she was absolutely right to do...". Jane home in instantly on the word 'absolutely' as an opportunity to interupt me. She could not accept 'absolutely' she said, on the grounds that no behaviour was absolute except that of God.


What she has demonstrated here is the way she hears words, but not meaning.


Going back to the incident of the Lynx, what I finally said to her was that I thought that such things were not important in any scientific sense, but were fateful. That is, nothing in this life happens by accident. Everything is meaningful. So, if she has experienced a major incident in her life centred on a lynx, then that is an interpretable event. I therefore picked up a pack of animal totem cards and looked up what they said about the lynx. According to the cards, the main attribute of the lynx totem, is that is signifies someone who has little discernment, who cannot see below the surface of things!


Well, she made that clear: like I said, she homes in on the words, and misses the meaning. The point is that words have meaning in context. They change colour according to context. It is HUMAN TO SAY : I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. Human's know what you mean; computers know the dictionary meanings of words. It is this homing in on the dictionary meanings of words, however, which suits arguers, because it allows nit-picking. So, if you do what my friend Jane has done, and you get into the way of homing in on the dictionary meanings of words, you limit your mind from ever developing beyond that of a computer, and into the world of full, human communication, where I know what you mean rules.


This then has repercussions when it comes to understanding and communicating with a Que, because in the language of the Que, there is no fixed meaning. There is only, I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. Metaphors have no fixed meaning.


So, then, how does such behaviour develop? I imagine she got it from one or other of her parents, and, of course, at the simple level, need I explain to anyone in our society the attraction of being the main man. We are a society transfixed by celebrity.


There is one final point that all this threw up. While Jane was here, I felt very uncomfortable about the wind, which was blowing a gale. I have mentioned elsewhere that I have been troubled about fear of the wind over the past years, but I was surprised by this manifestation of that fear because I thought I had got over it rather more than that. After Jane left, suddenly so did the fear. Thus I realised that it had been her fear. The point is that emotions are communicable.


The interesting aspect of this is the effect it has in childhood: my father was quite a fearful man. Just as this afternoon when I experienced the contagion of Jane's fear, so in childhood I experienced the contagion of my father's fear. Of course, in those days I had no notion that the fear could be anything other than my own. Thus I learned to believe that I was afraid of certain things that my father feared. As a child, I experienced fear in certain situations, so, naturally, I thought that I was afraid of those situations, and then justified those fears, and so only strengthened them.


This is how much of our personalities are formed. And that takes me back to getting rid of negative thoughts, feeling etc, which I covered in an earlier blog.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Turin, who is he?

In view of all I have been blogging about science ever the past couple of days, I think a few words on the subject of computer intelligence might be in order.


I called computers stupid, and justified that by pointing out that they cannot deal with their own crashes while people can. The fundamental distinction between computers and people is breadth. Computers are single-minded, specialists of the highest order. That is no good in the . In order to have a life and live in the real world, and enjoy living, one needs a vaste range of abilities, and human development is largely a case of developing new abilities, as well as the ongoing process of just getting better at everything with every experience --- which reminds me that, another fundmental characteristic of people is that they just keep on getting better in an unlimited way. So far, computers are only as good as they are programmed to be. I know there have been attempts to get them to learn, but how successful those have been I cannot say ... but, certainly, the idea of ongoing, all-round improvement going hand in hand with the ongoing development of new abilities is way beyond the sort of learning that computer people have in mind to get computers to do.


So, the logical conclusion of what I have said above, if you have not spotted it yet, is that, even if there are some things that computers can do better than people now, it is only now. People develop in a balanced way ... that is necessary for living beings .... we will, in due course, way outstrip computers at everything.


I might add here, since I drew the comparison of computers with specialists, that the same goes for specialists (concert pianists, or mathematicians for example) as goes for computers: those of us who choose to develop in a natural, balanced way will develop comparable abilities, and better, in due course. (I am a little hesitant here, because many of those 'experts' are not all they seem: there is many a concert pianist operating on a phenomenal memory and little musical appreciation!)

I Love Science

After yesterdays litte outpouring anyone would be forgiven for thinking I hate science. Nothing could be further from the truth!

I LOVE SCIENCE
That outpouring was from the 'once deceived'. But, when I recover my equanimity, and review the situation, I just shift my perspective: science is no longer THE TRUTH, the answer to the questions of life, the universe and everything; science is now artifice.
So, now able to re-position myself and view science as ART, I'm in love again, and on much the same basis as before, as it turns out: that is, it is a symphony, or ballet, in mathematics. How can one not be bowled over by MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS, those four, neat little lines of symbols that so cryptically encode a whole world. They are like the tightest, most elegant of metaphors. Yes, I guess that is it: physics is POETRY IN MATHEMATICS.
PHYSICS IS POETRY IN MATHEMATICS

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

To the Damnation of Science

This is a tirade against science. It has been inspired by a review in the Radio Times of a TV programme, HORIZON, scheduled for tonight. The review reads:
"Techno guru Ray Kurtzweil.....wants to be alive for the 'singularity'. That's the name hip scientists have given to the moment in history when computers will match the power of the human brain......'and they (computers) will become a billion times more powerful than they are today in a quarter of a century'. At which point, these fantastically clever machines .... will take over the world --- and perhaps stop crashing."

This has me aghast and spluttering with outrage! I have not had my ghast so spluttered since Ronald Reagan conned the American people with the 'Stars Wars' fantasy.

OK, hands up, how many of you out there believe this nonsense? My word, scientists have done a wonderful job in selling themselves. I am reminded of a scene from Disney's JUNGLE BOOK: Kaa, the snake, has got hold of Mowgli, and, under guise of being his friend, is preparing to eat him. He transfixes Mowgli with his hypnotic eye, and sings:
Trust in me
Just in me
Close your eyes
Trust in me.
Slip into silent slumber
.......
Slowly and surely your senses will cease to exist!
Mowgli managed to escape Kaa; so far, the general public remains hypnotised by the beady eye of science.
Let me be quite clear:
'Star Wars' is a fantasy. Not possible.
Computers are stupid. They could not compete with an insect, never mind a human being. I've explained elsewhere that biology is the answer to complexity. Just take the last remark from the review: and perhaps stop crashing. Biological machines are designed TO BE ABLE TO CRASH, pick themselves up, repair themselves, and get on with life agian. That is the kind of complexity you have to have to support 'life'.
By the way, I think it is time I should mention that I was a scientist, a physicist. I graduated from the University of Edinburgh with a B.Sc. in 1974, and an M.Phil. in 1978. I then spent 8 years doing research in industry and university before packing it in.
Time for a little history lesson:
Natural Philosophy, as science used to be known, probably really came into its own around the 17th century, when some interesting philosophical questions were shelved on the basis that no-one could think of a way of dealing with them. (ref: Rene Descartes) These questions were of extreme importance to science: depending on what answer you arrive at, science goes off down some very different roads.
Well, faced with questions they could not answer, scientists did what scientists do to this day: they pulled the most science-affirming answer out of the hat, and engraved it into the annuls of science where it has since become TRUTH.
The 'big questions' I'm talking about are the likes of these: is the world real, or virtual, ie a dream? There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that the world is real, but it benefits science to have us believe so.
Then there is: are we accidents of nature, or was the world created FOR us? The answer here PROFOUNDLY affects science, so, naturally, scientists chose to believe in the 'accident of nature' idea.
Notice that I am using the word BELIEF a lot in connection with science. Yes, as that would imply, science IS a religion! The dead give-away is the way science and religion are, and have always been, always locking horns --- animals that lock horns are of the same species, not different!
Now, let us home in specifically on physics, my home territory:
A major tenet of physics is that 'the universe is the same everywhere'. So, we've been to the other side of the universe to find out, have we? NO! Any evidence at all? NO! But, my word, it does sound grand to talk of the BIG BANG, and how BIG the universe is, and to build and play with big, very expensive telescopes, and big, very expensive mathematical equations, and to join the hunt for the THEORY OF EVERYTHING (TOE to those in the knoe!), and to pontificate on whether or not it might be possible to travel backwards in time in view of the fact that you might kill your own parents before you are born ----!!! BOLLOCKS! All the wonderful, DAZZLING science is ABSOLUTELY RIDDLED with ASSUMPTIONS, ie, things scientists have CHOSEN TO BELIEVE.
Talking of time travel, lets go back to the turn of the 20th century, to a time of revolution in physics: it was the time when the relatively simple world of what has come to be known as 'classical physics', gave way to the new, more complex worlds of 'quantum theory' and 'General Relativity' (Einstien's baby)
I have a personal aquaintance with quantum theory, on two counts.
First, when, as a student, I read Heisenberg's (one of the gods!) words of wisdom: "anyone who is not shocked by it has not understood quantum theory", I lost all confidence in my understanding of my subject. Why? Because I found the 'uncertainty principle' liberating, and 'wave/particle duality' enticingly mysterious. No, I was not shocked, ergo, I must be failing to understand!
Second, my own post-graduate research took me into the classical physics versus quantum theory arena. There was a fight, then? Yes. Physicists split, in the early 20th century, into classicists and quantum theorists. Sometime around 1930 or so, at the Solway Conference, quantum theory WON BY A VOTE! Evidence? None. And that is where I come in, more than 40 years later, when there was still no evidence one way or the other. (most of the 'big names' had gone with quantum theory, but some, de Broglie, for instance, remained true to classical theory).
I had the opportunity to carry out the FIRST EXPERIMENT EVER that could have provided the evidence that the conference had decided to do without. (it turned out that that the experiment was not feasible, though someone else found a successful alternative just a few years later --- and it did back quantum theory --- but this does not excuse the fact that physicists chose guesswork and belief over evidence 50 years before.)
Then, let us consider one of the voters at the Solway Conference: Albert Einstein, famous for the theory of relativity, another example of a theory lacking all evidence. Einstien is, of course, another who has achieved divine status! Now, I do not deny that it is a clever bit of work, and elegant to boot, General Relativity. BUT, THERE ARE MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM, LOTS MORE! So how come all the other profered theories have been forgotten? I guess Einstien (is it i before e, or the other way about) got in with the right people. You see, IT IS NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, about TRUTH.
In my own, lesser, sphere, I saw science, and, more importantly, scientists, in action. It is not, as I say, and never has been, about truth. Every scientist is fighting for HIS theory, because it IS his theory, and be damned with truth!
A scientists reputation (and thus earning power and all the rest) rests on two things:
1) how many publications he/she has to his/her name.
2) how many times his work has been referenced by other scientists in their publications.
This is a recipe for consuming rain-forests to generate mountains of rubbish. It is not a recipe for generating truth.
It would be true to say that some scientists are consuming rain-forests to 'prove' the 'truth' of their theory about the need to conserve rain-forests!

Sunday, October 22, 2006

The Way of the Warrior

or: Hooray for Sun Tzu's War Academy

In my previous post, I talked about such wonderful concepts as world peace, cooperation, and so on. On the face of it, that sounds like I have no time for the values of a warrior culture.
NOT SO.

It was the masculine, warrior side of my nature that got me through the hard times. When I was deep in the throws of psychosis, molly-coddling, sympathy, tea-and-biscuits, just made me go all limp and weepy. I needed strength to survive; I needed to fight for survival --- and, whats more, I needed the kind of mentality that draws strength from the fight. I needed to feel challenged, not helpless or needy; I needed to keep in mind the line from the old hymn: each victory will help you some other to win.

So, in case anyone should have picked up a wrong impression from my last blog: I cannot rate the WAY OF THE WARRIOR too highly.

I am with the Native Americans on this one: there is no such thing as 'bad medicine'.

One can, however, misdirect abilities, to the detriment of the self. (I shall probably return to this subject later, but, for the moment, I will let it go)

There are a whole host of programs on TV at the moment, such as EXTREME DREAMS, and another about disabled people going on an SAS led trek across Africa. People who take up those sorts of challenges are accessing the warrior (NB they are most often led by members of the SAS) in themselves, and the experience enhances all warrior virtues and abilities. And people who come back from those trips always talk about how their lives have been transformed: doors open, because they have much more confidence in themselves, because they have much more bottle, because they can concieve of doing things, and enjoying doing things, they would never have considered possible, much less desirable before.

Then, of course, one could go on about all those other challenges such as: reaching the Poles, getting to the top of Everest; reaching the moon ---

There is no single human ability that is bad, only sometimes misdirected. And, every single human ability enhances and enriches life, and the more abilities one aquires, the more doors open.

Another topic comes to mind now: abundance. When too many doors open, you are faced with unparalled choice --- aaahhh! I think I will transfer to another blog --- joan-well --- to spout words of wisdom on this subject!

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Motivation continued

This is the continuation of the post I wrote earlier today, titled: motivation.

After that blog, I can just hear people saying, "but I am motivated by competition", as though it was an unalterable fact of life. I do not argue with the fact that most people today are mostly motivated by competition/money and all the rest; my argument is with the idea that your nature is fixed in stone! Not so. You are the product of your unbringing, and you can choose to be the product of your own will. You can use the same conditioning that made you what you are, to make you what you want to be

I remember an old BBC TV series called: CIVILISATION. The writer/presenter, Kenneth Clerk (or was it Clerke, or Clark?), started off the series by attempting to define what civilisation/art is. He said that he could not define it, but that he knew it when he saw it! All he was really saying, was that he had a taste for the kind of thing he was brought up with.

I was brought up in a place where hot spices, curry, were still quite exotic, but available. Once in a while mother would make a curry, but I always asked for, and got, my serving cooked separately without the spices. Thus, I never developed a taste for curry. On the other hand, when I first tasted olives, though I found the taste quite disgusting, I was very attracted to the idea of olives, the food of the mediteranean cultures, and one that was supposed to be very good for the health. So I persisted in nibbling away at them, just little nibbles, from time to time, and, lo and behold, within a couple of years my taste buds had been so educated that they now found olives to be the food of the gods, sheer nectar!

All tastes, whether for food, activities, art or whatever, are just as educatable.

For an interesting article on how belief affects ones life, I would refer readers to the website: hathayogalesson.com. Under their section MIND, they have a subsection: BELIEF. This is worth a read.

Why are people on this country mostly Christian? Because they were brought up in a Christian environment. Why are most Asian Indians Hindu? Likewise. How does a Christian become Hindu? They choose to change their beliefs.

Most people believe competitiveness is fundamental to human nature, and thus to their own. They can choose to believe otherwise. Most people believe they have a certain personality, and tastes and talents etc. They can choose to believe otherwise.
And by making that choice they make the actuality happen.
This is the nature of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

But, to get down to the nuts and bolts. How does one bring about such change? I suppose you could say, : mind over matter!

In Robert Browning's poem, MY LAST DUCHESS, the Duke of Ferara criticises his late wife thus: 'she liked what'er she looked on, And her looks went everywhere.'
So let us take it that that is where we want to be: to be able to go anywhere, do anything, to be free of all restrictions imposed by upbringing and belief.

But, life is full of things you are not interested in, places you do not want to go, people you do not want to know. So much seems pointless. Someone says, "how about we go/do/see.....", and you say, "why would I want to?" And, you feel a certain lack of interest, or even a positive disinclination. Well, you are just responding to the voices of your past, your parents/peers/teachers/cultural heros, are ringing in your subconscious ears, and they generate the feeling of disinclination/disinterest.

So, the answer is simple: replace the old voices with a new voice, your own voice. When that word 'why' comes up in response to an invitation, whatever you might feel, say the words: 'because I want to.'

But that is not the end, because, if you do something you have been brought up to think poorly of, the voices will be working away all the time to rubbish the activity, and it can be quite a struggle to keep going. Here you must believe that it is not you that does not like this activity. Tell yourself that you really like this, and find reasons to like it.

By doing this, you are, in fact, beginning to exercise what is true human nature. The is nothing in this world which has any innate beauty/goodness/usefulness. It is part of what it is to be human to be able to see beauty/goodness/usefulness in things.

Motivation

In an earlier blog, I observed that our current predilection for competition, (have we not made something of a god of it?) is, in fact, unhealthy --- on grounds that it creates monocultures.

Indeed, the distinguishing feature that distinguishes between systems that are fundamentally competitive, or fundamentally cooperative, is that competition reduces diversity, leading ultimately to a monoculture, whereas cooperation creates diversity. This fact alone allows us to conclude that the natural world is fundamentally COOPERATIVE!

Considering how much our culture likes to justify competition by refering to nature, this might come as something of a shocker!

The evidence is 'in your face'! : take a glance at our cultural environment --- does the whole world aspire to be America, or does it not? And, on the contrary, are there not many, many more different kinds of invironment and many, many more species of animal in the world today than ever before? --- I rest my case!

So: COMPETITION IS UNHEALTHY.

So, why is the world, are we, so sold on competition? What it comes down to is motivation; what keeps us going on living day after day; what makes us want to live? --- to have a life?

Well, currently, it is money, power, status, and, underwriting all of those, competition. It's about keeping up with the Joneses, and then going one better. Why pratice running if not to win the olympics? Why play the piano if not to win the 'young musician of the year' award? Why act if not to win an oscar? Why dress in the latest fashions if not to impress the boss/opposite sex/friend?

Well, one could go on for ever examining the motives for people's actions, but the interesting thing is what is not there, or not very often.

To live for the LOVE of living.

--- that is what life is about. It is created for us to enjoy. We are endowed with senses/feelings/intellect so that we can interact with the world and enjoy it. Everything I do makes me more able, more knowledgable --- perhaps Tennyson expresses it best in his poem, ULYSSES: Every experience is an arch wherethrough gleams that untravelled world, whose margin fades forever as I move. These lines express a zest for life and experience (which is what life is.), a natural curiosity which is only fed and grows with every new experience.

When you get your head, and feelings, round living for the joy of living, you have gained access to the 'fountain of life'. Motivation is just not a problem. Enthusiasm, zest for living just well up afresh every day. Depression is unknown.

But, more, you become FREE AND INDEPENDENT. When you need competition to motivater you, you need someone to compete with. When you live for the joy of it, then you need no-one. Also, you are free, because you no longer need someone to tell you what to do/ to sanction what you do/ to justify what you do etc. Everything you do is an experience, and every experience is a good, because experience is what generates more zest for life; it is what generates greater abilities, knowledge and understanding.

In conclusion:
THERE IS LIFE BEYOND COMPETITION

And, what is more, that is the route to world peace, health and all of us being happy bunnies!

Thursday, October 19, 2006

The best of all possible worlds

In my last blog I talked about how viruses and the like are our friends, not our enemies. This raises a whole, bigger issue. The idea was thoroughly ridiculed by Voltaire, in 'Candide', but one must take the attitude that:
Everything is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.

This idea is embedded in all religions, where one is exhorted to 'worship' God, to 'have faith' in God, to 'thank God for all his gifts', to ,praise' God, and so on, and it ties up with the old saying: God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.

The point is not that God, (or, in my terms, the Que) wants to be told how wonderful he is; the point is that in order to understand the world, one has to start from the premiss that: all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

The key concepts to grasp are:
1. the extreme complexity of the world (which makes it inaccessible, in all important respects, to the simple logic of science)
2. at bottom, it is designed to work --- for US. That is, it is designed to be an environment in which human beings can thrive.
3. because it is a virtual reality: a) it requires a creator, the Que, and
b) mind preceeds matter. ie, what we see in the world, shows us what is going on in our minds.

This issue is of extreme importance, because our culture is a culture of critics, of problem solvers, and this has seriously bad consequences --- one might say that this, in fact, IS our problem. We urgently need to let go of the idea that the world is a hot-bed of problems that need solving before we can be healthy and happy, because it is precisely because we focus on, and believe in, our problems that we are not healthy and happy!!

At the simplest of levels, so long as we 'thrive' on problem solving, then we require the Que to provide us with problems to solve. Yet, also, when we focus on problems we invite depression, and other illnesses. And, we create a counter-evolutionary situation, ie, a situation in which 'all good things must end'. (So, ask once more the old question: why did the Roman Empire colapse?)

The example of how to deal with a complex world has been provided: it is the natural world. Evolution is the answer to a complexity that is way beyond mathematical equations. Evolution picks up on what is good, and drops what is bad. So, for example, when nature is busy designing wings for birds, it ensures that birds that fly best breed best, and thus the best wings get bred into future generations.

So, if I want to design a new computer, the correct approach is to look at what is best in current computers. So, I would sit down with an array of computers, play with them for a while, and then make a list of all the things I like about the various models. These likes would include appearance, perhaps key-board design, as well as, say, the language used by a particular software designer, certain attributes of the way a particular word-processor works etc --- anything and everything one likes would go on the list.

One would them go down the route of 'enhancing' each of these attributes, even where that means that to enhance one particular attribute, one has to drop many others. (this is called diversification)

There are many important/interesting things going on here.

First, as I have pointed out, one is creating diversity, as nature does, but as our culture does not (--competition creates monocultures --- not good!!) What is so good about diverstiy --- simply, it is enriching, but also, 'not puting all one's eggs in one basket', and so on.

Second, one is always working with things one likes, and always enhancing the 'likability' factor. Thus one is always creating things one wants to use.

Third, we are always enhancing our own ability to see the beauty/good/usefulness in things. (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!)

Notice form the above, that speed, being something we always fault computers for lacking, would not be on the list of likes, and therefore not something we would be pursuing. It is something that would 'evolve naturally', or not at all. Meanwhile, since we were not all transfixed by a desire for speed, technologists would not be 'blinkered' by a single-minded focus on that one goal. Chasing what they/we like would mean no competition, and lots of jobs for all!

Moving on form computers, life, 'your life', 'my life', wants to be treated in the same way. Life should not be seen as full of problems that need to be solved. It should be seen as full of good things. One should be making lists of all the things one likes about one's life, and going about trying to enhance those. (remember the bit about 'thanking' God? and remember virtual reality, and the fact that the Que is the creator of one's virtual world, the creator, in fact, of one's life? Do you want to throw its efforts back in its face, or do you want to say thank you, and motivate it to try to achieve bigger and better things for you?) And, more importantly, one should be trying to enhance one's ability to 'see the good in'. One's thoughts should be full of:'the good thing about this illness is....'; 'the good thing about that car crash was....';etc.

The point is that by doing this you are going down the route of evolving a healthier, happier and, in all ways better life.

Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

on illness and disease

The human race has been, and is, much concerned with combating disease, and the traditional, and continuing, view is that disease is an umfortunate fact of nature that we could well do without. Thus, modern science devotes much effort to the erradication of causes of disease, and even boast one or two successes, such as small-pox. But then, just as one disease has been pushed out the front door, a whole host of new ones sneak in the back-door!

This is inevitable, and must be.

One has to understand the nature of the human machine. That is to say, the bodies we inhabit are of the nature of biological machines. The point about being biological, as opposed to mechanical or electronic, is that biology supports a complexity that is way beyond the reach of electronics etc.

Now, as all programmers of computers will know, you have to have ways of testing the software, of catching little faults when they occur, and of getting them out of the system. This becomes a horrendous task when software becomes as complex as our modern electronic computers are able to support --- and they are nothing compared to the biological computers that our minds and bodies are.

So how do you cope with keeping such horrendously complex mechanisms up and running? You create little workers, an example of which is the virus, which are designed to seek out weak spots and amplify them. But you also provide the mechanism with self-protection and maintenance --- part of which, in the human body, is know as the immune system. If the body has no weaknesses, the viruses cannot get a hold; if it has weaknesses, the virus highlights the weakness, and the body is equipped to target and repair.

Thus viruses and other disease mechanisms are our FRIENDS, not our enemies.

We do ourselves a serious dis-service when we try to protect ourselves from disease, and this goes for diseases of the mind, also, which we are accustomed to call 'evil'.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Problems of overload

In the main blog titled: The Nature of Existence, I talked of signal-to-noise in relation to interpreting dreams and life experiences. When one begins to interpret, one runs into the problem of overload.

When one's mind opens to the fact that everything in life is interpretable, one is in the same situation as a blind person gaining sight. When someone who has been blind from birth suddenly gains the use of their eyes, they are innundated with visual signals which, at first, they can make no sense of. All they are aware of is a meaningless mass of colours and shapes that keep moving and changing, and which are meaningless to them, and, at first, it seems impossible that they will ever be able to make sense of all this stuff. They are in an overload situation, and it is very frightening.

The correct thing for such a person to do, is to only allow themselves to use their eyes for a limited period of time, at first, and only in one relatively 'simple' environment, such as an almost empty room.
The same advice applies to people who are learning to interpret: take it slowly, and do not be frightened if you do sometimes feel overwhelmed. Your mind can, and will, cope. One just has to endure the discomfort for a while.

There is a second overload danger that one encounters. This is associated with abundance. When you get to grips with the idea of the mind as a collection of abilities, and begin to realise that the consequence of this is that anyone can do anything, then, at a personal level, you suddenly have to deal with an abundance of choice. One has been used to having very limited choices in life, for a number of reasons ---

--- that leads me to an aside: one of the limiting factors has been that we think that things of the external world have innate qualities. So, eg, some things are beautiful and others not, some useful and others not. That fact is that, in the words of the old adage: beauty is in the eye of the beholder! That is, the ability to see beauty in something, or to identify usefulness, or whatever, is a learned human ability. ---

--- to get back, then, to abundance of choice. When one realises that one can do, and learn to like doing, anything, then one faces they same sort of overload as I described above. The advice, therefore, is the same. Take it slowly. Allow yourself to expand slowly from your existing core of preferences. And if you do experience an alarming sense of overabundance, or an inability to make descisions, sleep on it, or go back to some old, familiar places, give yourself a rest, and then start forward again.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

The Nature of Existence


THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE

INTRODUCTION
Currently there are very many beliefs about the nature and substance of existence. Christians believe one thing, Buddhists another, native Americans something else, and scientists something else yet again. All these systems of belief tend to be incompatible with one another. Each has a different belief about what life is about. Is there a god or gods? Does life have a purpose? At one extreme, scientists believe we are an accident of nature, while at the other extreme, many religions believe that some god or gods created the world for humanity.
Scientist believe that the world is real and solid, and that there are no such things as souls or spirits, or anything 'supernatural'. Some ancient religions, on the other hand, do not believe that there is any such thing as a solid, material world: it is all just a dream, that human beings are all just 'dreaming minds', but the dreams we have in daylight, while we are awake, are just stronger, more real versions of the dreams we experience while asleep. In the language of our scientific age, they believe we experience a virtual reality (currently used to train pilots and doctors etc) rather than a solid, material reality.
In our western, scientific world, this idea has been explored by philosophers, found wanting, and dismissed. Essentially, they could not see how it could possibly be true, could not rationalise it, and so threw it out. Thus we in the west chose to believe in a material world. But let me stress, it is just a belief, not in any sense a verifiable fact. Science, just as much as any religion, is founded on belief.
The most famous attempt to tease out the issue of the nature of reality, was that of Rene Descartes. He tackled the idea that life is all a dream, but could not make it work because he did not have the concepts available that would allow him to make sense of the idea. In particular, we now have experience of virtual reality, and have made inroads in attempting to understand dreams.
This work revisits the idea that life is all a dream, and, using these modern concepts, shows that, not only can the idea now be made to work, but the change in perspective that results, causes all of human experience to fall into place and form one, comprehensible whole.
As a consequence, we can now find answers to such age-old questions as: is there a god? What is the nature of good and evil? ---- and any other question you can think up!
What is more, the theory moves beyond the confines of philosophical speculation, and into the realms of the experimentally, or, more accurately, the experientially, verifiable. That is to say, it moves beyond the aegis of scientific experts, and becomes a matter for the individual. The reason for this is that we now have to view the world, as I shall show, as a living world.
The importance of this is that, unlike a dead, mechanical world, a living world responds to us. Ask it a question, and it will answer. So, the traditional difficulties associated with trying to find out and understand how the world works become trivial, and the new 'difficulty' becomes learning the language of communication with the world. However, this is no more than the difficulty we experience as children learning the language of our parents.
BASICS
All of us are minds; we have no material substance. A part of my mind is a virtual reality generator. All I experience is a virtual reality. My dreams are produced in the same way by the same part of my mind, the only difference being that they are in a weaker form.
The data that my mind uses to construct this virtual reality comes from another, bigger, mind. I call this bigger mind the Que ( pronounced like the letter 'Q'). Each of us exists in symbiosis with a Que. Dreams, too, come from the Que. Our minds do produce dreams, but these are output to the Que.
When you consider the vastness and complexity of the universe of our experience, it is obvious that the 'software' needed to generate and maintain such a universe must be unimaginably complex. In fact, such complexity can only be achieved by starting with something relatively simple, and then building in change and development through evolution. So, all we have learned about the nature of the universe remains valid, but now we can understand how the virtual universe came into existence, and why it is the way it is.
Thus our minds, too, have had to evolve, and 'in tune' with our virtual universe. Through many lives we acquire and develop the ability to use our five senses, our cognitive skills and our emotional/intuitive skills. At every stage of this development, we move up to a higher level of consciousness. So, one can imagine some primitive past in which we may only have had consciousness of a world we could touch. Then we became conscious of sound, then, perhaps, of seeing. At each step, we became conscious of a whole new dimension to existence, and our existence became richer and more complex. So we can envisage our minds rather like onions: each layer of the onion is a level of consciousness, and our development is a matter of expanding our mind into new levels of consciousness.
Most recently, our emotional and cognitive abilities have developed. Of these, language and the ability to communicate with each other is the most important. The language we use is the language of symbols. The next level up is the language of metaphor. This is the language of the Que. the language of dreams. When we achieve the ability to communicate freely in the language of the Que, we are like children who have just learned to speak. Instead of having to learn by trial and (mostly) error, we can now ask questions.
In terms of consciousness, we now enter a dimension in which the universe is alive, ie, interactive, and is meaningful. By 'meaningful, I mean this: as I said, both the data for generating our dreams and the virtual world, come from the Que. So life is just a dream. That is, life, my experience, is interpretable in exactly the same way as dreams.
IN MORE DETAIL
The best metaphor to gain an understanding of this situation is that of a game such as Dungeons and Dragons.
This is an example of a game which started small, and can still be played in 'small' form, as a video game for one player, but which has evolved into a much more complex, multi-player game which has no end. It goes on increasing in scope and complexity, always offering more variety of gaming experience to more and more players. It is crucial to the development of such a game that it does not ever end. To achieve such complexity, you start with something small and simple, and then use evolution to progress towards something ever more complex.
The minimum requirement for any individual to participate in such a Dungeons and Dragons game, is for one player to form a relationship with one dungeon master.
The Dungeon Master is someone who knows the rules, and how the game works. He can change the rules or make new rules. It is the Dungeon Master's job to create scenarios for the players. The player is someone who experiences the scenarios created by the Dungeon Master.
A successful game is one in which the Dungeon Master is able to create scenarios that are sufficiently interesting that the player wants to go on playing, and in which the player is able to give good feed-back to the Dungeon Master concerning his needs and preferences, and his assessment of the latest scenarios.
This raises the question of communication between the Ques and people.
The most straight forward and clear communication from the Ques to people is dreams. Dreams use metaphors drawn from the everyday world to create meaningful and purposeful communications. They are also a form of virtual reality. They are usually distinguishable from the waking world in that they are weaker, involving less sensory data, more like films than the full, virtual reality experience. Put it the other way round, and say: the real world is just a strong dream. The important point is this: that the real world is meaningful, and can be interpreted in exactly the same way as dreams.
This harks back to an earlier time when any unusual occurrence was interpreted as meaningful. More recently, the psychologist, Carl Jung, attempted to make sense of the significance of metaphors as they appeared, not only in dreams, but in mythology, alchemy, and parapsychology. He was stopped from fully realising his ideas by two problems: firstly, he did not properly grasp the purpose of the communications, and, secondly--- and more importantly --- he did not see, much less solve, the problem of signal-to-noise. That is, if everything one sees and experiences is a possible metaphor for communication, how does one decide what is significant, and what is just noise?
I will return to this later, but, essentially, the problem has to be dealt with in the same way as a baby deals with the problem of learning to recognise and respond to human speech.
In the other direction, the Ques also need communications from people, and they receive communications in the form of dreams. The dreams we experience are from the Que; the dreams our own minds produce are sent to the Que.
These dreams contain our hopes and fears, our questions, our reactions to our everyday experiences --- all of our experience, in fact. This is where 'ask the world a question and you will get an answer' comes in. The Que will answer all questions, address all problems, fulfil all hopes etc etc.

SOME FUNDAMENTALS
As I said, we have no material existence, and there is no material world. We construct our universes for ourselves from information that is transmitted to us from the Que. In fact, we exist in a sea of information, some of which is relevant to us and some of which is relevant to the infinite number of other beings who have their own, entirely alien, universes.
The first task for my mind is to filter out only information that is relevant to my universe. That is easy, in fact, because the information from my Que to me is usable only by me, and no other mind. Likewise, information produced by other Ques for their partners is meaningless to my mind. This is the nature and purpose of the symbiosis the exists between Que/human partners.
But even after I have isolated the information that comes from my Que, there is a great deal more of it that I am currently aware, much less am currently able to use. All this excess information exists in a sort of subconscious dream world, into which I get only occasional glimpses. Some of the more startling, sometimes bizarre, glimpses we get of this world are ghosts, guardian angels, hallucinations, mystical experiences, visions, and all other forms of psychic, and psychotic experience. (I have emphasised psychotic because the problem with much of what we call 'mental illness' is not the symptoms, which, as the above suggests are quite natural and even useful, but the fear of the symptoms and of mental illness/insanity)
Although all of our experience is a virtual reality, all the objects, people, animals etc. that I see, represent something/one that has an underlying reality. This is similar to icons on a computer screen: eg, I have an image on my computer screen of a waste-paper basket, and this represents a piece of software which will dispose of any files that I want to get rid of. In the same way, everything I see in virtual reality is an accurate representation of something in the underlying reality, showing my how it functions, and how it relates to all other 'objects' in that reality.
As I rise to higher levels of consciousness, I am able to manifest (ie create a virtual representation of) more and more things, and beings in my virtual world. Just as the world experienced by a mouse is immeasurably richer than that of an amoeba, mine is immeasurably richer than that of a mouse, and as my mind evolves and develops, it will, in time, be able to manifest worlds that are immeasurably richer than I am capable of experiencing now.
This idea of the mind as a growing and developing entity is crucial to a proper understanding of human nature --- which, currently, we understand very poorly, and as a consequence, we become ill. It is crucial to understanding what constitutes healthy, as opposed to unhealthy, behaviour. At the moment, we are like infants going around stuffing anything we can get a hold of into our mouths!
The best way to illustrate essential human nature is to use another metaphor drawn from the world of video games. This time it is Final Fantasy.
Basically, this is a game in which characters are built up as they experience a series of adventures. Most of these experiences are battles. After each encounter, each character gains a number of ability points. When a character gain enough ability points, certain of their attributes increases.
There is a basic set of attributes, defined as strength, agility, defence, magic and so on. All characters possess all of these attributes, just in different relative proportions.
So, through their encounters, characters accumulate ability points( often called experience points in other, similar games), which are used to increase their attributes. Then, every so often, when they have made sufficient attribute gains, they will acquire new abilities. Mostly, within the context of the game, these are abilities suitable to warriors and battles. They include such things as: threaten, aim, cure(an ability to heal themselves and others), steal etc etc.
This, then, is the essential description of human nature: we are learning creatures who experience life, and through every experience, we enhance our skills, which leads, every so often, to completely new abilities.
The importance of appreciating the video-game nature of existence, is to understand the great importance of acquiring skills and abilities, as opposed to, say, possessions, power, status etc. When any living being does what comes naturally to it, it is happy and healthy. To behave in any other way is to go against its nature, and it will become depressed and ill.
This is not to say that possessions are not desirable. Of course they are. But they are very much secondary acquisitions. Skills and abilities are primary, and with them, possessions fall into your lap!

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The above is a very brief and concise account to the virtual reality view of the nature of existence. To some it may seem plausible, to others not. Some may be prepared to believe it, and others not. In fact, belief would be inappropriate.
This is not a matter for belief.
This is a matter for verification from individual experience.
So where does one start?
--- get in touch with your Que. Once you have established communication with your Que, it can take care of answering all other questions.

MAKING CONTACT
There are two parts to this. First, there is the push and shove, ie, some way of just experiencing, sensing, that a Que does exist. Then, second, there is the business of establishing full, conscious, articulate communication. Needless to say, the latter is somewhat harder than the former.
The first has been happening since time began. As I said before, the whole world of spirit guides, vision quests, prayer, reading tarot or runes, interpreting omens, and other religious practices are all experiences of the push-shove variety. The traditional starting point remains the best starting point for contacting the Que.
However, one should not start from a particular, established religion, such as Christianity, because they work from belief to: this is how it should be experienced. Here we are trying to get from experience, to belief.
There is an extensive, modern literature which derives from, but updates, amalgamates and extends many ancient religious practices. These make appropriate starting points. They come under the general heading of paganism, and it is up to the individual to decide which particular approach suits them.
However, to get a foot in the door, I would recommend starting with: How to: Meet and Work with Spirit Guides, by Ted Andrews. In particular, his final chapter is a caution: it describes why you should, and how you can, home in on the authentic writers/practitioners, and avoid the con-men.
A further two recommendations:
Cosmic Ordering, by Jonathan Cainer
The Hedge Witch's Way, by Rae Beth.
The essential thing one is looking for is making contact with a spirit guide, guardian angel, or whatever.

The second part of making contact, ie achieving free, articulate communication, is somewhat more difficult --- that is why it has not happened till now. It is the language of metaphor, rather than the language of symbols, our familiar, wordy languages.
Why, one might ask, does the Que not use a simple language, plain English? As anyone who reads poetry knows, the language of metaphor is much richer and more powerful than that of symbolism. People using plain English can get by using only memory, bypassing thinking and understanding. Not so with metaphor. Metaphor breeds thinking and understanding. Thus it is a language whose use feeds the growth and development of the mind.
Having said all that, the task is very much like that of a child learning to speak: ie, you have, and will develop, all the required abilities as you go. Do not try to control it, just let it grow and develop. So, really, just start the ball rolling, stay interested, and it will happen.
'Start the ball rolling', means: get a handle on the interpretation of dreams.
Much has been written about the interpretation of dreams, some of it useful, but most of it misleading, largely because the source and purpose of dreams has not been understood. Keep in mind that dreams are a communication from a mind that exists in symbiosis with your own, and whose role is Dungeon Master to your Player.
So, for example, suppose you want to learn to interpret dreams. It is the Que's job to teach you. Thus you might get a sequence of several little dreamlets in one night, and one image you can interpret very easily, while the others baffle you. The chances are that this will be a lesson in dream interpretation, and all the images are different ways of saying the same thing. That thing you got from one image, so you can use that to work backwards with the other images.
Earlier I pointed out that acquiring skills and abilities is basic to the nature of a games player. Now add to that the need to understand the game and its rules, and to be able to keep track of where you are in the game, and here you have the key to understanding the bulk of the communications that pass between Que and partner.
We go through life shedding questions as we shed hairs and leave them scattered around. "Why did he do that? Why did I not get that job? Why did I find that so difficult? What is it that appeals to me so much about that film?" These questions are the product of a natural curiosity, and we want to know the answers. Our minds are living things, growing question by question, as the body grows cell by cell. And just as the body is composed of millions of cells, so our understanding and wisdom are composed of the answers to millions of little questions. Again, if the cells do not develop, the body will cease to grow, and if the questions do not get answered, the mind ceases to grow.
At the most fundamental level, the job of the Que is to answer all those millions of little questions. It can do so in a variety of ways, but primarily through a dream, or a life experience --- which, as I have said, is interpretable in exactly the same way as a dream.
The trick is to remember the questions you have been asking, (not easy when you have been used to shedding them like hairs!) and then to associate the question with the dream/experience. The dream will usually display the incident that provoked the question, and the particular metaphor that is uses will contain the answer to the question, or, to put it another way, will shed light on the incident.
There are two questions that need to be answered when one begins to interpret dreams:
1. what images/events do you choose to interpret?
2. how do you get at the meaning?
1. It is important to let nature take its course here. Just as we have learned to use our ears and eyes effortlessly, so that our attention is caught only by sights and sounds that are relevant to us, so we need to learn to use our sixth sense to draw our attention only to dream images or events that are relevant to us.
As far as dreams are concerned, you may be woken in the night in the middle of a dream. Most of it will evaporate rapidly, but some images and impressions will linger. Those are the ones to pay attention to. Likewise, if you wake in the morning to find some dream images lingering in memory, those are relevant.
As to events in everyday life, this is largely a matter of developing intuition. What I call intuition can take many forms: gut feeling; something just jumps out at you; you get an odd physical or emotional sensation. Basically, the Que uses a physical/emotional marker pen to highlight incidents that are relevant and contain answers to your questions.
2. How to get at the meaning:
First, always look for/choose something positive or optimistic. If you cannot see anything positive, forget it. I have stressed the evolutionary nature of existence, and that is relevant here, too. The idea is to use natural selection. In the context of the external world of plants and animals, nature selects what is good, what works, breeds that into future generations, and drops what is bad. In the context of interpreting dreams/events, you must select what is positive/optimistic, and drop anything that is negative/pessimistic.
Second, dreams deal with questions that arise naturally in the mind in response to experiences. So one must make some connection between the dream and the experience.
For example: consider what I am doing right now, ie, writing this article. I am experiencing some difficulties. I am not sure I am achieving what I wanted to achieve; I find I am getting uncomfortably anxious, and I do not understand why etc etc. Tonight I might well have a dream that is an illustration of my experience of doing this writing, and when I unpick the metaphors, they will throw light on all aspects of the experience.
Finally, the meaning. Metaphors are very personal things, so one cannot create a dream dictionary. The emphasis is less on learning the particular meaning of a particular image, (which, in any case, will change) and more on learning how to handle metaphors. Poetry is the home of metaphor, and is a good place to practise, but I will offer an illustrative example: bees.
One might have a real-life encounter with a bee, or it might occur as a dream image. It is all the same.
Bees are busy. But busy could also be represented by 'ants', or a 'city', or by lots of people milling about. So why bees in particular? Look for other attributes: bees sting, they make honey, the males are called 'drones' etc etc. So the emphasis may be on 'sting' rather than 'busy', or on 'sting' and 'busy'. Then there are expressions such as: a bee in the bonnet. If you recognise that you do have a bee in your bonnet about something, then the bee may be the clue to associating the dream with the experience.
Then there are the personal associations. For myself, I was once chased by a swarm of bees. I also have a bush in the garden that the bees love. It is very relaxing on a warm day, to sit in the sun and listen to the busy drone of the bees. So, for me, the bee might suggest a combination of busy and relaxed. So a dream with a bee might suggest, to me, that I may be very busy, but I am not stressed by it; rather, I am finding it relaxing! The dream may be responding to a worry: say, I am thinking of taking up a new hobby, but I am worried that it will make my life to busy and therefore be stressful. The dream says, "No, it will make you busy, but in relaxed, and relaxing, way."
Or, it might be that I am experiencing stress, and am blaming some activity. The dream, again, is saying, "No. That activity is making me busy, but has a relaxing effect."