| The
Grand Denial -and Great Acceptance |
|||||
|
Read Aug 2006 blog discussing our tendency to deny change. Return
to review of
Return to Mirror Neuron World Blog Sept 2006
|
Posted August 2006 Explanation of why our culture uses vital energy symbols to generate nonsense (non-science) at our risk and suggestions how we can generate science and be more sustained. A new principle of energy? (Sept 2006) “When a symbol use works to deny change it will materially alter the potential of the universe (energy) in a way that results in a reduction in the capacity of the symbol user to mirror reality. When a symbol use works for the acceptance of change it will increase the capacity of the symbol user to mirror reality.” Quick
thoughts on communication Link List of common uses of vital symbols that generate nonsense (non-science) cooling = cooling down = cooling warming = warming up = warming global warming = bad= global warming climate change = anthropomorphic driven changes to our climate climate change = bad = climate change greenhouse = enhanced air/thermal convection atmosphere=suppressed air/thermal convection=blanket= greenhouse greenhouse gases = greenhouse gases the dominant greenhouse gas = carbon dioxide energy = Bulk-generated electricity = energy power = Bulk- generated electricity = power energy = tradeable activities only = energy Humans can create, destroy and conserve energy renewable energy =energy that is renewed = energy non-renewable
energy = energy that is not renewed = non-energy sustainable
energy = energy that is sustainable = energy unsustainable
energy = energy that is unsustainable = non-energy carbon trading =
conservation = stewardship energy efficiency = using less energy =
energy
conservation. entropy= destruction of energy
= energy shortage = energy crisis Science = discipline like
language, art, physics, sociology, technology etc Quick thoughts on communication Communication is the exchange of thoughts, messages or information using speech, signals, writing or behaviour. Each communication involves the selection of symbols to convey the meaning we intend to express, the image evoked by the symbols in the mind of the recipient and the response these image generate in the recipient. The image evoked in the recipient is a summary of the recipient’s life associations with the image and these may be very different from our conscious intentions when we select symbols. Because the bulk of the recipient’s associations are primal and unconscious the effectiveness of the communication is best measured by what the recipient does in response, not what they say.Definition of symbol Symbols come in as many forms as we have senses ie they can be in the form of visual graphics (words,photos, cartoons etc. sounds, smells, taste and tactile. Wikipedia has a useful discussion of the nature of symbols: "A symbol, in its basic sense, is a conventional representation of a concept or quantity; i.e., an idea, object, concept, quality etc. In more psychological and philosophical terms, all concepts are symbolic in nature, and representations for these concepts are simply token artifacts that are allegorical to (but do not directly codify) a symbolic meaning, or symbolism.
The nature of the symbol and the process of symbolization are deeply rooted in the human nervous system. The relationship of that system to consciousness, thought and subjectivity is not understood, although there are some theories of partial explanation. The tokenization of objects may be conscious or unconscious." Our choice of symbols reveals the primal drivers of our behaviour. At the same time the conscious use of science-based symbols can cause a shift in the nature of those primal drivers and result in more sustainable behaviour. Image has many meanings in our culture. I define an image is an iconic mental representation. My 1963 Britannica Dictionary provides the most satisfactory definition I can find. An image is a representation in the mind of something not perceived at the moment through the senses; a product of the reproductive imagination or memory of things seen heard touched, etc.,including the accompanying emotion; representation of a sense perception; mental picture; hence, an idea. As many of our images of energy and climate processes are generated using words I will also include this more limited literary definition: Image A
word, phrase, or figure of speech (especially a simile or a metaphor)
that addresses the senses, suggesting mental pictures of sights, sounds,
smells, tastes, feelings, or actions. Images offer sensory impressions
to the reader and also convey emotions and moods through their verbal
pictures. See also figures of speech. Summary introduction. The following list contains key symbol uses in our culture. They have a number of things in common. The symbol uses: (1) Generate nonsense. (2) Reflect a confused dysfunctional state (individual & collective.) (3) Lack science. (4) Often promote objectives counter to the stated objectives of their users.(Not so of PR industry.) (5) Are unsustainable and profoundly maladaptive.
The intimacy with which we experience energy is matched only by the difficulty we have describing it. I define it as the potential of the universe(s) and understand I can never fully appreciate its scale while in this mortal form. I concur with these Wikipedia definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy In
general, the concept
of energy refers to "the potential for causing
changes". Etymology Energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Energy Etymology
From Ancient
Greek ενέργεια
(energeia) "action, act, work", from ενεργώ
(energo) "to act, to be active", from εν
(en) "in, at, within" + έργον
(ergon) "work". [edit] Noun
energy (plural
energies)
(physics) A quantity
that denotes the ability
to do work
and is measured in a unit dimensioned in mass
× distance˛/time˛
(ML˛/T˛)
or the equivalent (Reader Alert! Nonsense Link The wiki page with the above quote links the reader to “energy conservation” which is nonsense/non-science. Further brief discussion at end and in humans can create, destroy and conserve energy.) I agree with those who say that the Principle of the Conservation of Energy is the nearest we have to a natural law. No human has demonstrated a practical violation of the principle. The key messages of the principle are that the quantity of energy is as bounteous as the universe(s), it comes in many forms and these constantly change. This includes the human form i.e. we are mortal. We are vital elements of this flux of change and as one of its forms are dependent on all other elements of the flux for full knowledge of the scale of the potential. Consciousness with its powers of reflection (See mirror neuron links) provides us with the capacity to reflect the potential of existence (energy) nature of energy. It also provides us with the capacity to become disconnected and deny our role as stewards of resources as well as the transitory nature of our existence and our mortality. This is a paradox of our consciousness. The lack of acceptance and denial by individuals and societies of change/mortality of energy forms is the source of our suffering and generates the greatest risks to humanity. It is symptomatic of a culture that regards the aging process and our weather changes as diseases and the tendency of humans to blame such changes for their unhappiness. With lack of acceptance of mortality and change comes our tendency to deny our role as stewards of resources that sustain us. The more we are disconnected from reality the more we blame outside events for our suffering. In extreme cases we even talk of “energy crises” and “power threats” when it is our use of energy/power forms that is the issue. Our capacity for denial of change has been recognised and articulated for as long as humans have been able to pass their story of existence down to future generations. For instance it is said that the Buddha observed and advised at least 100 generations ago or two and half thousand years ago the following: Better a single day of life Seeing the reality of arising and passing away Than hundred years of existence Remaining blind to it. The realisation of the ephemeral nature of the self and the world is the key that opens doors to liberation. True mental balance is based on full awareness of problems, awareness of all levels of reality. Tradition says that the last words of the Buddha were “All sankharas- all created things – are subject to decay. Practise diligently to realize this truth. Or to quote Goenka, a person of that tradition of psychology in our generation: A real equanimity is properly called “holy indifference”. It is a dynamic quality, an expression of purity of mind. …We need be secure in the understanding of impermanence. This will also change.
This ancient wisdom that has sustained humanity so far has also provided us with insight into how we may transcend the paradox of our consciousness and most fully mirror the potential, which is energy. Again people like the Buddha have helpful suggestions as to how we can achieve this transcendence. I cannot provide you with a direct path to that wisdom but can say peace and equanimity are not found in the denial of change, whether on the individual level or the societal level. Our current culture is being reshaped in the form of this denial and no more so than by those who call for change so that humanity is conserved. I refer to our so-called scientists and (environmental) educators. The following list of symbol uses all reveal a fundamental denial of change and our trace existences. They all work to deny the Principle of the Conservation of Energy and are maladaptive in that they work to disconnect humans from reality. So-called scientists and educators are at the forefront in promoting their use. This list of symbol uses represents a grand rationalisation of unsustainable behaviour. Collectively the symbol uses generate the current net confusion and ignorance that threatens the existence of humanity. They shape our culture so that it fails to mirror reality and it is unable to enjoy equanimity. In other words, the uses promote fear, addiction, self-loathing and violence. Witness our generation’s use of effectively irreplaceable resources such as soil, oil and Gas and the way we slaughter each other to gain control of them. My belief is that our use of a symbol reveals our primal beings (essential behaviour drivers) equally as our adoption of a symbol use can lead to an awakening in us of an awareness in us that more truly mirrors reality. By consciously employing symbols in a scientific way our actions are transformed and we are more able to accept and mirror reality. Without that use of science we can never transcend the paradox of our existence and lead a sustainable existence. I will present each symbol use with its denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) and then provide examples of alternate uses of symbols that more promote understanding of the Principle in our daily lives (sense/science.) cooling = cooling down = cooling Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is constantly being transferred from one place to another. In this case thermal energy constantly moves from warmer regions to cooler regions and never the reverse. When warming = cooling the net temperature of an object remains unchanged. There is constant change in that thermal energy constantly flows through the object. If the balance warming = cooling ceases this will result in net temperature change. If the incoming thermal energy in is less than the outgoing thermal energy then the temperature of the object drops. This is cooling down. To state that cooling = cooling down denies the constancy of change and continual transfer of thermal energy. This denial works to suppress awareness of the vitality of our existence and of the balances that sustain us. Acceptance of
the Conservation Principle (sense/science) cooling = cooling cooling down = cooling down
warming = warming up = warming Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is constantly being transferred from one place to another. In this case thermal energy constantly moves from warmer regions to cooler regions. When the net temperature of an object remains unchanged this means warming = cooling. There is constant change in that thermal energy constantly flows through the object. If the balance warming = cooling ceases this will result in net temperature change. If the incoming thermal energy in is more than the outgoing thermal energy then the temperature of the object rises. This is warming up. To state that warming = warming up denies the constancy of change and continual transfer of thermal energy. This denial works to suppress awareness of the vitality of our existence and of the balances that sustain us. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) warming =warming warming up =warming up
global warming = bad= global warming Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is constantly being transferred from one place to another. In this case thermal energy constantly moves from warmer regions to cooler regions. When the net temperature of an object remains unchanged this means warming = cooling. If the balance warming = cooling ceases this will result in net temperature change. Earth is constantly being warmed by solar radiation as it cools and this results in the net global temperature of the surface of the Earth remaining relatively constant. This constancy of temperature enables life on Earth, as we know it. To state this is bad is to deny one of the most vital processes enabling human civilisation to exist. To state the warming process of our planet is bad is to exist in severe dysfunction and to fail to mirror the reality that the warming process is healthy. This denial works to suppress awareness of the vitality of our existence and of the balances that sustain us. It also works for the ends of those individuals who harvest confusion e.g. the PR industry. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Global warming/cooling balance = good and welcome Human-induced Thermal Build-up or Thermal Imbalance of Earth’s surface = high-risk activity for humanity. Our role = Climate Balance Protection There are “changes to climate patterns”.
climate change = anthropomorphic driven changes to our climate Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is constantly being transferred from one place to another. In this case thermal energy constantly moves from warmer regions to cooler regions of our planet. This constant movement of thermal energy in our atmosphere, oceans and soils enables the climate change that sustains life on this planet. To state that climate change = anthropomorphic driven changes to our climate i.e. that climate change is a human induced process is deny the trace role humans play in this process. The paradox is that this delusion of human dominion over Earth’s climate in turn generates a sense of disconnection and dis-empowerment in people as well as promoting maladaptive activities. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Climate change = the constant change in Earth’s climate caused by all manner of direct drivers of change (rotation/ seasonal and diurnal, solar, human, ant, plankton, tectonic etc) anthropomorphic driven changes to our climate = human induced change Our role = Climate Balance Protection There are “changes to climate patterns”.
climate
change = bad = climate change Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is constantly being transferred from one place to another. In this case thermal energy constantly moves from warmer regions to cooler regions of our planet. This constant movement of thermal energy in our atmosphere, oceans and soils enables the climate change that sustains life on this planet. To state the climate change process of our planet is bad is to exist in severe dysfunction and to fail to mirror the reality that the climate change is healthy. This denial works to suppress awareness of the vitality of our existence and of the balances that sustain us. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/science) Climate change = good and welcome Human-induced Thermal Build-up or Thermal Imbalance of Earth’s surface = high risk activity for humanity. Our role = Climate Balance Protection There
are “changes to climate patterns”. greenhouse = enhanced air/thermal convection Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is
constantly being transferred from one place to another. In this case
thermal energy constantly moves from warmer regions to cooler regions of
our planet. This constant movement of thermal energy in our atmosphere,
oceans and soils enables the climate change that sustains life on this
planet. Earth’s atmosphere contains trace gases such as water vapour,
methane and carbon dioxide that have a relatively high capacity to
retain thermal energy. The gas molecules can move relatively freely at
speeds of up to hundreds of kilometres an hour around our globe. This
capacity of our atmosphere for convection enables life on Earth, as we
know it by moderating temperature extremes and warming areas of the
planet’s surface not directly warmed by solar activity. It enables
climate change, as we know it. By contrast greenhouses are designed to
suppress air convection and our prime experience of them is a lack of
air movement or wind. This use of the greenhouse symbol denies change
and works to generate images of human dominion over Earth’s climate
processes. The extreme nonsense generated by this use of the greenhouse symbol can be seen in enhanced greenhouse effect = more hurricanes and other extreme weather events. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) greenhouse = suppressed air/thermal convection + human generated structures. Atmosphere = high capacity for convection and low capacity for
conduction of thermal energy via Warmer Trace Gases =vigorous and
organic process = Atmospheric Effect. Our role = Climate
Balance Protection
greenhouse =bad = greenhouse Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is constantly being transferred from one place to another. In this case, as always, thermal energy tends to constantly move from warmer regions to cooler regions. However humans can suppress the movement of infrared radiation (low level energy waves) by exploiting key capacities of air i.e. its high capacity for convection and low capacity for conduction of thermal energy via the Warmer Trace Gases. Some substances such as certain glasses and plastics are transparent to sunlight. Sunlight is in the form of higher-level energy waves such as are required for photosynthesis, seeing etc). We can use these light transparent materials to suppress air convection and thus increase the incoming thermal energy compared to the outgoing thermal energy of a structure. To evoke negative associations with greenhouse images with such symbols such as greenhouse gas, greenhouse effect, enhanced greenhouse effect is to deny change and to suppress the sustainable uses of air in technologies such as dwellings, clothing, freezers, etc. Acceptance of
the Conservation Principle (sense/science) Greenhouse = good/valuable resource exploiting our ability to
suppress convection. Human-induced
Thermal Build-up or Thermal Imbalance of Earth’s surface = high-risk
activity for humanity. atmosphere=suppressed air/thermal convection=blanket= greenhouse Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is
constantly being transferred from one place to another. In this case
thermal energy constantly moves from warmer regions to cooler regions of
our planet. This constant movement of thermal energy in our atmosphere,
oceans and soils enables the climate change that sustains life on this
planet. Earth’s atmosphere contains trace gases such as water vapour,
methane and carbon dioxide that have a relatively high capacity to
retain thermal energy. The gas molecules can move relatively freely at
speeds of up to hundreds of kilometres an hour around our globe. This
capacity of our atmosphere for convection enables life on this planet as
we know it by moderating temperature extremes and warming areas of
Earth’s surface not directly warmed by solar activity. Blankets are
characterised by suppressed air movement and thermal convection. Humans
commonly create blankets using wool, bark, polyester, polystyrene, glass
fibres and shaping them so they suppress the movement of infra-red
radiation (low level energy waves). We can do this by exploiting key
capacities of air, namely its high
capacity for convection and low capacity for conduction of thermal
energy via the Warmer Trace Gases. To
describe the atmosphere as a blanket is a denial of change. It also suppresses our capacity to understand how we can best generate sustainable uses of air in technologies such as dwellings, clothing, freezers, etc. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Atmosphere = high capacity for convection and low capacity for conduction of thermal energy via Warmer Trace Gases =vigorous and organic process. Blanket = structure or system that suppresses air convection and hence thermal convection. Most often associated with good/valuable resources manufactured using our ability to suppress thermal convection in such products as bedding, clothing and dwelling insulation.
greenhouse gases = greenhouse gases Denial of the
Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) The use of the
greenhouse symbol necessarily evokes images of greenhouses and their
principal associations with human-generated structures and suppressed
convection. See previous “greenhouse” symbol uses. The gases that
constitute our atmosphere, including the Warmer Trace Gases, are
characterised by their capacity for relatively fast movement around the
planet. Associating them with suppressed movement of gas as found in
greenhouses is a denial of change. The other principle feature of the
gases that retain almost all the thermal energy in the atmosphere is
that they exist only in trace amounts. To describe them as greenhouse
gases is to deny the trace nature of the balances that sustain life on
Earth. Acceptance of
the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) greenhouse gases = gases found in greenhouses. Gases
retaining almost all the thermal energy in atmosphere = Warmer Trace
Gases. Atmosphere = high capacity for convection and low capacity for
conduction of thermal energy via Warmer Trace Gases =vigorous and
organic process. Our
role = Climate Balance
Protection the dominant greenhouse gas = carbon dioxide Denial of the
Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) This is a denial
of reality on multiple fronts. See how evoking greenhouse images of the
atmosphere denies change. It denies the
truth that water vapour is by far the dominant Warmer Trace Gas and
without it Earth’s average surface temperature would be over 20°C
cooler. It also denies our primal experience, which is that we are water
beings. We evolve from being 90% water beings in the womb and remain an
average of 60% water throughout our lives. We constantly require access
to fresh water to maintain our ocean.) We are intensely sensitive to
changes in water vapour levels in the atmosphere and water in all its
forms is our dominant experience of weather. It denies our
role as stewards. Certain individuals and groups are making large
amounts of money promoting the concept that humans can trade away their
responsibilities. In this case they have identified carbon dioxide, as a
lucrative trade whereas they realise it is not possible to trade water
vapour. They deny change in that once combusted a carbon based fossil
fuel is effectively gone for millions of years, if not forever. Acceptance of
the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) The dominant Warmer Trace Gas = water vapour Water vapour = dominant form in atmosphere processes Our
role = Climate Balance
Protection + enhancing our children’s inheritance trace
gases =
!? Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is constantly being transferred from one place to another. In this case thermal energy constantly moves from warmer regions to cooler regions of our planet. This constant movement of thermal energy in our atmosphere, oceans and soils enables the climate change that sustains life on this planet. Earth’s atmosphere contains trace gases such as water vapour, methane and carbon dioxide that have a relatively high capacity to retain thermal energy. A trace gas is defined as a gas that exists in less than one part in a thousand (1:1000) of the atmosphere. The gas molecules can move relatively freely at speeds of up to hundreds of kilometres an hour around our globe. This capacity of our atmosphere for convection enables life on this planet, as we know it, by moderating temperature extremes and warming areas of Earth’s surface not directly warmed by solar activity. Some of the trace gases retain almost all the thermal energy retained in the atmosphere. Without them the atmosphere would retain relatively little thermal energy and Earth’s average surface temperature would be 33°C cooler. To fail to evoke images of tiny quantities with large leverage, such as characterises these trace gases is to deny change and the trace nature of the balances that sustain us. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) A trace gas is a gas that exists in parts per 1000 or even a million in the atmosphere. Collectively all the trace gases constitute less than 0.1% of the atmosphere. Some trace gases have very high leverage on thermal balances in the atmosphere. The Warmer Trace Gases = !? Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) See trace gases = !? Three gases – nitrogen, oxygen and argon - constitute 99.9% of the atmosphere. The remaining gases exist only in a few parts per thousand and even parts per million. Some of these trace gases (eg water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone) have a relatively large capacity to retain thermal energy. Without them the atmosphere would retain relatively little thermal energy and Earth’s average surface temperature would be 33°C cooler. These trace gases are not only warmer than other gases. They also act as warmers of Earth surface. They can be described as the Warmer Trace Gases. To fail to evoke images of tiny quantities with large leverage, such as characterises the Warmer Trace Gases, is to deny change and the trace nature of the balances that sustain us. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Warmer Trace Gases= trace gases that retain the bulk of the thermal energy in the atmosphere. We
are Trace Beings. Our
role = Climate Balance
Protection
energy = energy forms= energy Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). Energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. To say energy = energy forms= energy is to deny the bounteous nature of energy, the limited nature of all energy forms and the fact that humans are mortal. It is also a very high-risk activity because to state a valuable energy form (such as oil, soil, trees, fresh water or coal) = energy is to say it is as bounteous as the universe(s). This flawed belief promotes very unsustainable uses of the resource. Great civilisations that have made this fatal confusion, have then failed to mirror reality and have denied the Conservation Principle. Inevitably they destroyed their base and collapsed for lack of science. Our current civilisation is making the same error. It is common in our culture to state energy forms= energy This is a grand denial of change. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Energy is bounteous and comes in a multitude of forms, none of which should be confused with energy. Energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. All forms of energy are subject to constant change. Name the energy form(s) or class of energy forms you have in mind.
energy = fuel = energy Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). Energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. To say energy = fuel = energy is to deny the bounteous nature of energy, the limited nature of all energy forms and the fact that humans are mortal. It is also a very high-risk activity because to state a valuable energy form (such as oil, soil, trees, fresh water or coal) = energy is to say it is as bounteous as the universe(s) and to promote very unsustainable uses of the resource. In particular there is a very high risk that the belief that energy = fuel = energy denies the role of the atmosphere in the energy equation fuel + atmosphere = useful energy form. It is possible this flawed belief is placing our current global civilisations at major risk of collapse. We fail to acknowledge the net impact of our daily activities on the trace balances of the atmosphere that sustain us. Similarly our belief that fuels (uranium etc) = energy promotes the use of a wide range of resources in an unsustainable manner and denies the mortal status of human beings and change in general. Acceptance of
the Conservation Principle (sense/science) Fuel + atmosphere = combustion = useful form of energy. Nuclear reactions = high-risk product for 100,000s years. The form and capacity of human civilisation is subject to constant change and this sometimes occurs very quickly. fuel
= combustion =fuel Denial of the
Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) See energy = fuel = energy. To state a fuel =combustion is to deny the Conservation Principle as it denies the prime role of the existence of the atmosphere in the energy equation. Combustion cannot occur without the atmosphere. If the fuel is grown at time of use i.e. is not a stored as a fossil fuel, this equation denies the prime roles of freshwater and the soil. Combustion affects the trace balances of the soils and the atmosphere that sustain us. Hence the equation fuel = combustion =fuel denies change. This is also true of fuels in nuclear reactors. Acceptance of
the Conservation Principle (sense/science) combustion =fuel +atmosphere (+ soils) Our
role = Climate + Soil Balance Protection energy = Bulk-generated electricity =
energy Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). Energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. To say energy = Bulk-generated electricity = energy is to deny the bounteous nature of energy, the limited nature of all energy forms and the fact that humans are mortal. The denial is particularly high risk as we are Electrical Beings. Electricity comes in many forms and humanity can be understood as a conglomeration of electricity forms. To even state that electricity =Bulk-generated electricity is to destroy a large range of resource options available to us. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/science) Know something called “electricity” as such does not exist. Rather know the symbol can be used to evoke a wide range of forms. Name the electricity form(s) or class of electricity forms you have in mind eg state Bioelectricity, Piezoelectricity, Triboelectricity, Thermoelectricity, Atmospheric Electricity, Electromagnetism, Electrostatics...ETC. Differentiate Bulk-generated Electricity from Micro-generated Electricity eg Small Commercial-gen Electricity, Dwelling-gen Electricity, Nano-gen Electricity etc. Know the use of each type has very different impacts on the environment. Check out http://www.amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html power = Bulk- generated electricity = power Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Power is as universal as energy. It is the rate at which work is performed. To quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics) In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work is performed. In the SI system of measurement, power is measured in watts (symbol: W). This can be modeled as an energy flow, equivalent to the rate of change of the energy in a system, or the time rate of doing work,
where P is power E is energy W is work t is time.
Power is another way of describing the potential of the universe(s) and, like energy, is bounteous and comes in many forms, each of which is subject to constant change. In as much as energy is conserved, so is power. To state power = Bulk- generated electricity = power is a denial of change and the Conservation Principle. All forms have power and the defining of power as Bulk-generated electricity effectively destroys a vast range of options available to us. In particular it destroys our ability to make use of a wide range of forms of electricity. In general the denial puts humanity at risk, as Bulk-generated electricity is an inefficient use of resources that are effectively non-replaceable. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Power is as bounteous as energy and comes in many forms that are subject to constant change. Name power forms eg solar power, dwelling-gen electrical power, wind power etc Bulk- generated electricity = one of many useable forms of electricity
energy
= tradeable activities only = energy Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the
potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). Energy
is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only
transferred from place to place or from one form to another. To say energy = tradeable activities only
= energy is a gross denial of change and destroys access by humans to vast
quantity of the potential available for our use. The equation also
destroys concepts of stewardship of vital energy forms and promotes
high-risk images of human dominion over energy. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s). Humans can conserve some energy forms/resources Trade measures only a small portion of human activity.
Humans can create, destroy and conserve energy Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). The Conservation principle clearly states energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. The statement Humans can create, destroy and conserve energy is a grand denial of change. To create or destroy even the smallest quantity of energy would be to breach the Conservation Principle and destroy the potential of the universe(s). Since consciousness began and we first experienced a desire to be immortal, humans have sought ways to circumvent the Conservation Principle with “perpetual motion machines”, “elixirs of youth” and “renewable energies”. All have failed and invariably in their failure they have worked to destroy their culture. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Energy is conserved. The Principle of the Conservation of Energy is the nearest to a natural law that we know. Humans can conserve resources i.e. some energy forms and sources. renewable energy =energy that is
renewed = energy Denial of the
Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). The Conservation principle clearly states energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. To say some energy is renewable is to say the remainder of energy is non-renewable. When the non-renewable energy is not renewed then it ceases and energy is no longer a conserved quantity. Change must also cease with the ceasing of the energy. Even to say all energy is renewable denies the reality of the Conservation Principle. Implicit in the statement is the belief that energy is not a conserved quantity. Since consciousness began and we first experienced a desire to be immortal, humans have sought ways to circumvent the Conservation Principle with “perpetual motion machines”, “elixirs of youth” and “renewable energies”. All have failed and invariably in their failure they have worked to destroy their culture.
Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Some resources can be renewed many times. Some sources of energy are renewable many times. Some forms of energy are renewable many times. There exist relatively renewable sources/forms of energy.
non-renewable energy = energy that is not renewed = non-energy Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). The Conservation principle clearly states energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. See the denial inherent in renewable energy =energy that is renewed = energy. The concept of non-renewable energy generates equal denial and nonsense. It is non-energy and hence cannot exist. Acceptance of
the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Some resources cannot be renewed easily. Some sources of energy are non-renewable. Some forms of energy are non-renewable. There exist relatively non-renewable sources/forms of energy.
sustainable energy = energy that is
sustainable = energy Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). The Conservation principle clearly states energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. To say some energy is sustainable is to say the remainder of energy is non-sustainable. When energy is not sustained then it ceases and energy is no longer a conserved quantity. Change must also cease with the ceasing of the energy. Even to say all energy is sustainable denies the reality of the Conservation Principle. Implicit in the statement is the belief that energy is not a conserved quantity. Since consciousness began and we first experienced a
desire to be immortal, humans have sought ways to circumvent the
Conservation Principle with “perpetual motion machines”,
“elixors of youth” and “renewable energies”. All have failed
and invariably in their failure they have worked to destroy their
culture. The use of some resources can be sustained long term. The use of some sources of energy is relatively sustainable. The use of some forms of energy is relatively sustainable. There
exist relatively sustainable sources/forms of energy. Sustainable resource use. unsustainable energy = energy that is unsustainable = non-energy Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) See
the denial inherent in sustainable energy = energy that is sustainable = energy. The
concept of unsustainable energy generates equal denial and nonsense. It
is non-energy and hence cannot exist. The use of some sources of energy is relatively unsustainable. The use of some forms of energy is relatively unsustainable. There exist relatively unsustainable sources/forms of energy. Unsustainable resource use.
carbon trading = conservation = stewardship Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). The Conservation principle clearly states energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. Some transformations occur over millions of years eg the formation of oil, Gas and coal deep in Earth’s crust. Another transformation that occurs over millions of years is the balance of the gases in the atmosphere. Oil, Gas and coal provide an extremely valuable resource when combined with the atmosphere in combustion. Humans have the capacity to deplete this fossil fuel and risk altering the atmospheric balances that sustain us. We have the capacity to do this within a generation. To attempt to trade away the impacts our personal use of fossil fuel combustion is to deny the fact we have used a resource that was subject to millions of years of change. Indeed in defining fossil fuels as energy and using the resource as though it is as bounteous as energy we deny the Conservation Principle. When we attempt to trade away responsibility for our transforming action we deny our trace existence as we alter the balance of the trace gases that sustains us. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/science) Carbon trading is not stewardship. Combustion = fuel + atmosphere. Fossil fuel= millions of years of change. Any quantity of fossil fuel once transformed may never be available again in that form again in the life of the Earth. Sustaining atmosphere =balance of change of trace gases. energy efficiency = using less energy = energy conservation. Denial of the Conservation Principle(nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). The Conservation principle clearly states energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. To define the wise use of resources as the use of less energy is to deny the bounteous nature of energy. It is to deny change and the range of transformations available to us. It promotes needless sense of deprivation and a loss of sense of balance. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/ science) Energy comes in many forms. These forms exist in a balance that sustains human life. Our ability to make use of the energy in each form varies. It is not how much energy we use that matters but how our use of different forms of energy impacts on sustaining balances. We need be stewards of all forms of energy that we use so that essential balances are maintained. We need conserve resources so balances are retained eg conserve our solar generation capacity. entropy= destruction of energy = energy shortage = energy crisis Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). The Conservation principle clearly states energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. We each exist as a mortal form within this flux of transformation and change. To state that entropy results in the destruction of energy is a grand denial of change and our own mortality. It represents a confusion of energy forms that we perceive as useful with all the energy forms inherent in the potential of existence. In other words, humans are not in a position to know what role or value an energy form has in the great potential. Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/science) From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy Definitions of entropy suggest
it derives from the notion “in any natural process there exists an inherent tendency towards the
dissipation of useful energy.”
and "energy
turned to waste" In 1665
Clausius defined entropy thus: “ I
propose to name the quantity S the entropy of the system,
after the Greek word [τροπη trope],
the transformation. I have deliberately chosen the word entropy to
be as similar as possible to the word energy: the two quantities to
be named by these words are so closely related in physical
significance that a certain similarity in their names appears to be
appropriate.” It can be valuable to put value on energy transformations in small closed systems. However to use the concept of entropy to ascribe process and value to the vast potential which the Conservation Principle reveals is to deny our Trace Beings. Any error we make in our puny scales of measurement and judgement is amplified and leveraged against us. I propose that the following understandings as least risky: Energy comes in many forms and humans cannot judge how useful those forms are. Humans are another form. These forms exist in a balance that sustains human life. Our ability to make use of the energy in each form varies. We need be stewards of all forms of energy that we use so that essential balances are maintained. We can “waste” and “destroy” energy forms and this will not alter the total amount of energy. It can only put the viability of humans at greater risk.
Entropy can only be assumed and measured in very small closed systems. Science = discipline like language, art, physics, sociology, technology etc Denial of the Conservation Principle (nonsense/non-science) Energy is the potential of the universe(s) and is abundant as the universe(s). The Conservation principle clearly states energy is a conserved quantity: it is neither created nor destroyed, but only transferred from place to place or from one form to another. We each exist as a mortal form within this flux of transformation and change. To state that science is a system of thinking that exists apart from language, art, history, technology and all the capacities that enable us to mirror existence in a conscious way is to deny change and our need to be active stewards. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle suggests that our act of consciousness affects the balance of the energy flows and we each reflect the flux in a different way as our position in space and time differs. As part of the flow it is not ours to know the ultimate impact of our consciousness on it. As a reflective species we need constantly search to mirror the reality of our existence for our species to remain in harmony with the balances that sustain us. Every act of every conscious individual is an experiment in mirroring reality. The changing nature of energy means that no two experiments can be identical. Acceptance of change requires acceptance of our limitations. We need accept the fact our individual consciousness is trace and mortal. This means our experiments cannot completely mirror reality. We need accept the fact that our fellow beings each mirror a vital part of reality that we can only mirror through them. We need accept the fact that the balances we seek to mirror are trace i.e. based on trace elements with very high leverage. To best mirror reality we need to know compassion for ourselves so we can learn from each experiment, for our fellow humans so we value and share their vision and for our environment so we may be sensitive to its flows and balances. With compassion comes collegiality, trust, inclusiveness, honesty and all the capacities requisite for science to exist. It is this compassion in experimentation that is science that enables language, art, empathy, history, technology and all those capacities that enable sustainable societies to exist. Science enables us to better reflect reality. Without it we become confused and experience nonsense (non-science). To say science is separate to all language, technology etc is to deny change and the Uncertainty Principle. In the absence of science our language, art, technology etc self-destruct and civilisation collapses. We fail to be stewards of our resources and to mirror reality.
Acceptance of the Conservation Principle (sense/science) Science
is experimentation with compassion.
Reader Alert! Energy Conservation is the practice of decreasing the quantity of energy used while achieving a similar outcome of end use.
This use of the “energy conservation” is in direct contradiction of the Conservation Principle. It confuses our awareness of the nature of energy and makes us vulnerable to those who market their products by playing on sensations generated by a sense of “energy deprivation”. In many situations this definition contradicts wise uses of resources. In these situations it is possible to use larger quantities of energy while sustaining vital environmental balances. An example is wise design that maximises solar potential.
Credits My special gratitude to the many Environmental Educators, “energy experts” and climatologists I have been privileged to share life with. I value their sensitivity to the environmental balances that sustain us and their concern that our children shall inherit these balances. It is in my awareness of their sensitivity and concern that I became aware of the phenomenon of “grand denial” that I write of. I became aware of the ability of our so-called scientists to display a lack of science in the communication of their knowledge, despite their enormous knowledge of their subject. I became aware of the sometimes profound discrepancy between the walk and the talk of our Environmental Educators and heard them express despair at getting their message across and at the level of public confusion of the issues. I became very aware that their use of key symbols often generated nonsense and framed excellent content with non-science. I asked the following questions: -What fundamentals might drive the behaviour of such unsustainable symbol use? -Does the choice of symbols reflect a primal dysfunction in the user? -Could it be that Environmental Educators and climatologists are especially vulnerable to this dysfunction? The possibilities of the last question occurred because I was aware that many of these people were more aware than most people of their impacts on environment balances and so were likely to be more stressed by inabilities to mirror the balances because of family, career, societal and other pressures to conform to unsustainable behaviours. Hence they might be at the forefront in promoting symbols reflecting confusion and denial. I trust people can know the humility with which I observe and record this phenomenon of rationalisation and denial. I trust people will know it is only with humility that I was able to reflect on my own denial of the nature of energy and my mortality. Without some humility I could not known what symbol uses more express science and acceptance. My gratitude is sincere as the greater vision I now enjoy. My special thanks to my daughter Bianca who happened to give me a book containing Buddhist wisdoms recently, just when I was perceiving the common pattern of denial of change in ths list of symbol uses. It provided me with the insight, that I hope you can share, that our denial of our mortality is not a phenomena of our century. I believe that the use of science in our symbol use will resonate and promote more sustainable behaviours and resource use.
Return to Mirror Neuron World Blog
Return
to review of Read Aug 2006 blog discussing our tendency to deny change.
|
|
|||
