Ultimas palabras aconsejables

" Siempre los recordaré...Mientras siga vivo , claro"

" ¿ Saben qué? Todo lo que siempre les dije ...¡era mentira1"

" Un dia como este es cuando Dios murió"

" ¿ Qué esa luz tan brillante?¡ Abuela! ¡Bisabuela! ¡Marciano!"

" ¿ No quiere alguien hacer esto en mi lugar?"

"¡Oh, Jesús, has venido por mí! Pero qué pinta de árabe tienes ...te hacía más rubio..."

" Quiero confesarles a todos : tengo un cofre lleno de lingotes de oro escondido...Oia...no recuerdo dónde"

"Obsérvenme con cuidado: esto de morirse se hace así"

" No me tengan lástima : ya les tocará lo mismo a cada uno de ustedes ...¡ y mucho antes de lo que imaginan!"

Ultimas palabras de condenados a muerte

George Harris
Alguien tendrá que matar a mi abogado”


Thomas Grasso
“Pvor, contad a la prensa que no me han servido mi ración de Spaguetti, ¡Quiero que toda la prensa lo sepa!

.
Thomas Grasso, ejecutn Oklahoma el 20 de Marzo 1995.  En la comida anterior a su ejecución no aparecieron los famosos spaguettis de Campbells pidió como última vtima voluntad.





Richard Wade Cooey II

“Vosotros no habéis prestado atención a todo  lo que dije durante los últimos 22 años. ¿Por qué coño vais a prestar atención a lo que tengo que decir ahora?”

.

William Mitchell
“Hace algunas hora Wayne Snow(Alcaide) me comentó que no tenía redención alguna. . Le quiero decirle ahora aWayne es que me bese el culo. Hasta siempre”.


Christina Marie Riggs
“Ahora puedo volver con mis niños como siempre he querido.”


David Lawson
“Siento de verdad y me arrepiento de haber matado a Wayne Shinn, espero que el  Estado alguna vez se arrepienta de haberme matado a mi tambien a m”


Douglas Roberts
“Cuando me muera, entierrenme bien profuundo, con uns altavocees a mis pies, unos auriculaes en mms orejas y ponedme Rock’ Roll Algún díaa nos veremos en el cielo.”
( ejecutado en Texas el 20 de Abrilde 20055por e seccuestro, robo y asesinato de un hombre de 40 años)

Jeffery Doughtie
“Durante casi nueve años, he estado pensando en la pena de muerte, de si es correcta o incorreca, y noohe enconntrado ninguna respuesta coherente. Pero no creo que el mundo sea un lugar más seguro o mejor sin mí. Si me querían castigar deberían haberme matado al día siguiente, en lugar de matarme 9 años después. Ahora no me afecta de la misma manera. He tenido tiempo para prepararme, para decirle adiós a toda mi familia y para dejar mi vida donde necesitaba estar. “
Jeffery Doughtie ejecutado en Texas el 16 de Agosto de 2001 por matar con una tubería de metal a dos ancianos en su tiendaa de antigüedades porque éstos rehusaron darle dinero para sus drogas.

Napoleon Beazley
Executed May 28 2002
Age 25
Age at time of offence 17
Crime "Carjacking murder" of 63-year-old John Luttig

Last statement "The act I committed to put me here was not just heinous, it was senseless. But the person that committed that act is no longer here - I am.
"I'm not going to struggle physically against any restraints. I'm not going to shout, use profanity or make idle threats. Understand, though, that I'm not only upset, but I'm saddened by what is happening here tonight. I'm not only saddened, but disappointed that a system that is supposed to protect and uphold what is just and right can be so much like me when I made the same shameful mistake.

"If someone tried to dispose of everyone here for participating in this killing, I'd scream a resounding, "No." I'd tell them to give them all the gift that they would not give me [ ... ] and that's to give them all a second chance.
"I'm sorry that I am here. I'm sorry that you're all here. I'm sorry that John Luttig died. And I'm sorry that it was something in me that caused all of this to happen to begin with.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/20/usa.aidaedemariam
"Tonight we tell the world that there are no second chances in the eyes of justice [ ... ] Tonight, we tell our children that in some instances, in some cases, killing is right [ ... ] No one wins tonight. No one gets closure. No one walks away victorious."http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/drowfacts.htm

A Discussion on Death:
"We have never asked what is the meaning of death. We have put death in opposition to life.
... death implies the ending of attachment. It is only in the ending that there is a beginning."
(Pupul Jayakar, A Biography: Chapter 38, page 393)

'The following extract (Krishnamurti and Bohm, 1985, pp. 149-53) on the holomovement and death seems particularly appropriate, in view of Bohm's recent passing (as well as Krishnamurti's in 1986).'

K: "What is movement, apart from movement from here to there, apart from time - is there any other movement?
B: Yes.
K: There is ... is there a movement which in itself has no division? ... Would you say it has no end, no beginning?
B: Yes ... Can one say that movement has no form?
K: No form - all that. I want to go a little further. What I am asking is, we said that when you have stated there is no division, this means
no division in movement.
B: It flows without division, you see.
K: Yes, it is a movement in which there is no division. Do I capture the significance of that? Do I understand the depth of that statement?
... I am trying to see if that movement is surrounding man?
B: Yes, enveloping.
K: I want to get at this. I am concerned with mankind, humanity, which is me ... I have captured a statement which seems so absolutely
true - that there is no division. Which means that there is no action which is divisive.
B: Yes.
K: I see that. And I also ask, is that movement without time, et cetera. It seems that it is the world, you follow?
B: The universe.
K: The universe, the cosmos, the whole.
B: The totality.
K: Totality. Isn't there a statement in the Jewish world, "Only God can say I am."
B: Well, that's the way the language is built. It is not necessary to state it.
K: No, I understand. You follow what I am trying to get at?
B: Yes, that only this movement is.
K: Can the mind be of this movement? Because that is timeless, therefore deathless.
B: Yes, the movement is without death; in so far as the mind takes part in that, it is the same.
K: You understand what 1 am saying?
B: Yes. But what dies when the individual dies?
K: That has no meaning, because once I have understood there is no division.
B: ... then it is not important.
K: Death has no meaning.
B: It still has a meaning in some other context.
K: Oh, the ending of the body; that's totally trivial. But you understand? I want to capture the significance of the statement that there is
no division, it has broken the spell of my darkness, and I see that there is a movement, and that's all. Which means death has very
little meaning.
B: Yes.
K: You have abolished totally the fear of death.
B: Yes, I understand that when the mind is partaking in that movement, then the mind is that movement.
K: Yes, I would say that everything is ... One can never say then, "I am immortal." It is so childish.
B: Yes, that's the division.
K: Or, "I am seeking immortality." Or "I am becoming." We have wiped away the whole sense of moving in darkness ...
B: Just going back to what we were saying a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind, and then the ground is
beyond that.
K: Would you say beyond that is this movement?
B: Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground, and falls back to the ground; that is what we are saying.
K: Yes, that's right. Mind emerges from the movement.
B: And it dies back into the movement.
K: That's right. It has its being in the movement.
B: Yes, and matter also.
K: Quite. So what I want to get at is, I am a human being faced with this ending and beginning. [This] abolishes that.
B: Yes, it is not fundamental.
K: It is not fundamental. One of the greatest fears of life, which is death, has been removed.
B: Yes."
Extract courtesy of: Lifework of David Bohm: River of Truth by Will Keepin, posted online by Alex Paterson.

Commentary: The central statement here is that there is in fact no division anywhere in life, in the universe. Everything is interconnected; there is no separation between anything; the only difference is in the expression of life, which is the physical form. This is called here a movement; people have for eons called it eternity. This is saying that the mind of man (not "my" mind) is an inherent part of this movement, as is all matter. Matter arises from this movement and then falls back into it. Thus, actual physical death has no inherent meaning. This then is a new expression of the old saying: From ashes to ashes. The only thing that ultimately dies when the physical form dies is all the psychological attachment - that is, the self. This is the true origin of the statement: Death is now. The self must die now, not at some time in the future; then you are at one with the movement behind all life itself - pure energy:
See Life after Death: A Most Extraordinary Discussion - on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Reincarnation:
"... those who believe in reincarnation, believe they will be reborn with all that they have now - modified perhaps - and so carry on, life after life. Belief is never alive. But suppose that belief is tremendously alive, then what you are now matters much more than what you will be in a future life. In the Asiatic world there is the word `karma’ which means action in life now, in this period, with all its misery, confusion, anger, jealousy, hatred, violence, which may be modified, but will go on to the next life.

So there is evidence of remembrance of things past, of a past life. That remembrance is the accumulated `me’, the ego, the personality. That bundle, modified, chastened, polished a little bit, goes on to the next life. So it is not a question of whether there is reincarnation (I am very definite on this matter, please) but that there is incarnation now; what is far more important than reincarnation, is the ending of this mess, this conflict, now. Then something totally different goes on. ...

I have said that the present life is all-important; if you have understood and gone into it, with all the turmoil of it, the complexity of it - end it, do not carry on with it. Then you enter into a totally different world. I think that is clear, is it not?"
(Questions and Answers, Ojai, California, May 13, 1980, 'Reincarnation'; paragraphs and ellipses added)

Commentary: What is clearly stated here - and carefully repeated so that you understand it - is that the revolution, or incarnation, is now. Once that happens (that is, the end of the ego) then one enters a different state, which one cannot know about in advance. It is called a new dimension. Hence the statement, "death is now". So there is reincarnation, but this reincarnation is of the stream of humanity, the self. One must step out of the stream of humanity when one is still alive:
See Life after Death: A Most Extraordinary Discussion - on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
~~~~~~~~~~~
On Evolution:
Questioner: “Do you believe in evolution? You have often said that understanding is immediate, the act of learning is on the moment; where does evolution play a part in this? Are you denying evolution?

K: It would be foolish - would it not? - to deny evolution. There is the bullock cart and the jet plane, that is evolution. There is an evolution of the primate to the so-called man. There is evolution from not-knowing to knowing, Evolution implies time; but psychologically, inwardly, is there evolution? Are you following the question? Outwardly one can see how architecture has advanced from the primitive hut to the modern building, mechanics from the two-wheel cart to the motor, the jet plane, going to the moon and all the rest of it - it is there, obviously there is no question whether these things have evolved or not. But is there evolution inwardly, at all?

You believe so, you think so, do you? But is there? Do not say `there is' or `there is not'. Merely to assert is the most foolish thing, but to find out is the beginning of wisdom. Now, psychologically, is there evolution? That is, I say `I shall become something" or `I shall not be something; the becoming or the not being, involves time - does it not? `I shall be less angry the day after tomorrow', `I shall be more kind and less aggressive, more helpful, not be so self-centred, selfish', all that implies time - `I am this' and `I shall be that'. I say I shall evolve psychologically - but is there such evolution?

Shall I be different in a year's time? Being violent today, my whole nature is violent, my whole upbringing, education, the social influences and the cultural pressures have bred in me violence; also I have inherited violence from the animal, the territorial rights and sexual rights and so on - will this violence evolve into non-violence? Will you please tell me? Can violence ever become non-violence? Can violence ever become love?”
(Talks with American Students: Chapter 12, New School for Social Research, New York)


"The inner awareness was always there” (1934)

Rom Landau: "How did you come to that state of unity with everything?"

Krishnamurti: "People have asked me about that before, and I always feel that they expect to hear the dramatic account of some sudden miracle through which I suddenly became one with the universe. Of course nothing of the sort happened. My inner awareness was always there; though it took me time to feel it more and more clearly; and equally it took time to find words that would at all describe it.

It was not a sudden flash, but a slow yet constant clarification of something that was always there. It did not grow, as people often think. Nothing can grow in us that is of spiritual importance. It has to be there in all its fullness, and then the only thing that happens is that we become more and more aware of it. It is our intellectual reaction and nothing else that needs time to become more articulate, more definite."

Extract from an interview by Rom Landau in his book God is my Adventure: A Book on Modern Mystics, Masters, and Teachers.
Reprinted, 2008; reproduced from Google Books, page 286; this interview was conducted in Carmel, California, in 1934; emphases added.
(Note: This is the only quote on this site that dates prior to 1947/48, which are the years when he said he came to full awakening; all quotes before this time apart from the one above have therefore been discarded as not being fully formed, and therefore irrelevant to self-understanding.)


The Final Deathbed Statement (1986):
(Last days: Star in the East: Krishnamurti, The invention of a Messiah, by Roland Vernon - Book extract: All the world was his classroom)

On February 17, 1986, Krishnamurti died of inoperable cancer of the pancreas, which had spread to the liver; in the last weeks of life he was occasionally given morphine for the pain. Nine days before his death he made this final statement at Ojai, in response to an earlier question put to him in writing from Mary Cadogan, who was not present when this statement was made. This statement was tape-recorded by Scott Forbes (who was the only other person present in the room at the time) at Krishnamurti's request (with pauses - not ellipses - as indicated):

"I was telling them this morning -- for seventy years that super energy -- no -- that immense energy, immense intelligence has been using this body. I don't think people realize what tremendous energy and intelligence went through this body -- there's twelve-cylinder engine [sic]. And for seventy years -- was a pretty long time -- and now the body can't stand any more.

Nobody, unless the body has been prepared, very carefully, protected and so on - nobody can understand what went through this body. Nobody. Don't anybody pretend. Nobody. I repeat this: nobody amongst us or the public know what went on. I know they don't. And now after seventy years it has come to an end. Not that that intelligence and energy -- it's somewhat here, every day, and especially at night. And after seventy years the body can't stand it -- can't stand any more. It can't. The Indians have a lot of damned superstitions about this -- that you will and the body goes [sic] -- and all that kind of nonsense.

You won't find another body like this or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years. You won't see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. They'll all pretend or try to imagine they can get in touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that's that."
(Mary Lutyens, The Open Door: 1988, pp. 148-49; emphases in the original)

~~~~~~~~
Commentary: This deathbed statement has been the subject of some controversy, due principally to the phrase "many hundred years." Many people have seen this as an acknowledgment that this "supreme intelligence" (ie, the otherness, or 'that thing' - see the quote below) is only for a select few and thus is essentially pre-ordained in human history. It will only operate in a carefully prepared and protected body which is selected out from humanity by this intelligence. This dovetails neatly with the unique awakening of 1922 and the resultant "process" that he underwent for decades after. It leaves an opening, of course - "perhaps they will somewhat", implying that there is a partial awakening that we can attain. But this is distinct from an immense intelligence that "uses" the body, as an apparent, direct, human manifestation.

There is another way of looking at this statement however, one which has not hitherto been canvassed. It could be incorrect. The man at the time was for the most part in the grip of strong pain, to the point where morphine was used, even though it is a known fact he had experienced adverse reactions to even such things as mild drugs in the past. Late-stage, metastatic, terminal cancer is not conducive to clear thinking. The biographer states that there were times in the final weeks when he refused to talk as his mind was not clear. Was this statement uttered at a time when his normal judgment was clouded?

The fact is that no-one, not even this man, could (and can) accurately predict the future. In fact the talks themselves imply this, as a given. Life is action, life is constantly changing, every moment is a unique event. The "end of time" means the end of predicting the future for the future is not what is, and cannot be known with any certainty (unless there is another meaning of past, present and future that is beyond our current understanding). So this statement predicting the future clashes (ostensibly) with the essence of the talks themselves. Hence, it could well be wrong.

Another point regarding this statement is that the phrase "But nobody has done it" did not only apply, as some have stated, to the people in the room, as Scott Forbes was the only other person present (this is aside from the fact that he explicitly used the phrase: "amongst us or the public"). What is being implied here is that if someone during his lifetime had reached liberation from the self, then that person would have contacted Krishnamurti as a natural action. (He would then have had the perceptivity, or mental acuity, to determine the state of mind of this other person.) Hence, because no-one had done so during his lifetime, then he could clearly state that "nobody has done it." And it's true, nobody has done it, otherwise the world would know about it.
Krishnamurti: "We said the other day Sidney Field came to see me. His brother John died recently. You knew him. He was very concerned whether his brother was living in a different level of consciousness; whether there was John as an entity born [in the] next life. And did I believe in reincarnation and what did it mean. And so he had a lot of questions. He was having a difficult time with himself because of his brother, whom he loved and whom we have known for years. So out of that conversation two things came up. First, is there a permanent ego? If there is such a thing as a permanent something, then what is its relationship from the present to the future? The future being the next life or ten years later. But if you admit or accept or believe or assert that there is a permanent ego, then reincarnation...
*Alain Naudé: ... is inevitable.
K: Not inevitable. I wouldn't say inevitable. It is plausible, because the permanent ego, to me, if it is permanent, can be changed in ten
years time. It can incarnate differently in ten years time.
A: We read this all the time in the Indian scriptures. We read about children who remember the past life, about a girl who said, "What am I
doing here? My home is in some other village. I'm married to so and so. I have three children." And in many cases I believe that this
has been verified.
K: I don't know. So there is that. If there is no permanent entity, then what is reincarnation? Both involve time, both involve a movement in
space. Space being environment, relationship, pressure, all that existing within that space, time.
A: Within time and temporal circumstances ...
K: ... That is, culture etc ...
A: ... Within some sort of social set-up.
K: So is there a permanent me? Obviously not. But Sidney said, "Then what is it that I feel, that John is with me? When I enter the room,
I know he is there. I'm not fooling myself, I'm not imagining; I feel him there as I feel my sister who was in that room yesterday. It's as
clear, as definite as that."
A: And also sir, when you say "obviously not," would you explain that?
K: But wait. So he says, "My brother is there." I said of course he is there, because first of all you have your association and memories of
John and that is projected, and that projection is your remembrance.
A: So that the John who was contained within you is that.
K: And when John lived he was associated with you. His presence is with you. When he was living, you might not have seen him all day,
but his presence was in that room.
A: His presence was there, and perhaps this is what people mean when they speak of an aura.
K: No, aura is different. Let's not push that in yet.
........
*Mary Zimbalist: May I interrupt - when you say he was in that room, whether alive or dead, was there something external to his brother and sister that was there, or was it in their consciousness?
K: It is both in their consciousness and outside consciousness. I can project my brother and say he was with me last night, feeling he was
with me, that may emanate from me; or John, who died ten days ago - his atmosphere, his thoughts, his way of behaving still remaining
there, even though physically he might have gone.
A: The psychic momentum.
K: The physical heat.
Z: Are you saying there is a sort of energy, for want of a better word, which human beings give off?
K: There was a photograph of a parking lot taken where there had been many cars, and the photo showed, although there were no cars
there, the form of the cars that had been there.
A: Yes. I saw that.
K: That is, the heat that the car had left came on the negative.
A: And also one day when we were living in Gstaad, the first time I was your guest at Gstaad, we were living as Les Capris - you left
for America before any of us left, and I went into that flat - you were still alive and on your way to America and your presence was
there, extremely strong.
K: That's it.
A: Your presence was so strong, one felt one could touch you. This was not simply because I was thinking about you before I entered
the flat.
K: So there are three possibilities. I project out of my remembrance and consciousness, or pick up the residual energy of John.
A: Like a smell that would linger.
K: John's thought or John's existence is still there.
A: That's the third possibility.
Z: What do you mean by that, John's existence?
A: That John is really there as before he died? The third possibility.
K: I live in a room for a number of years. The presence of that room contained my energy, my thoughts, my feelings.
A: It contains its own energy, and when we go into a new house it sometimes takes time before you are rid of the person who was there
before you, even though you may not have known him.
K: So those are the three possibilities. And the other is John's thought, because John clings to life. John's desires are there in the air, not
in the room.
A: Immaterially.
K: Yes, they are there just like a thought.
A: And does that mean that John is conscious and there is a being who is self-conscious calling himself John, thinking those thoughts?
K: I doubt it.
A: I think that is what the people who believe in reincarnation would postulate.
K: See what happens, Sir. This makes four possibilities and the idea that John whose physical body is gone, exists in thought.
A: In his own thought or someone else's?
K: In his own thought.
A: Exists as a thinking entity.
K: As a thinking entity exists.
A: As a conscious being.
K: That is - listen to this, it's rather interesting - John continues because he is the world of vulgarity, of greed, of envy, of drinking, and
of competition. That is the common pattern of man. It continues and John may be identified with that, or is that.
A: John is the desires, the thoughts, the beliefs, the associations.
K: Of the world.
A: Which are incarnate and which are material.
K: Which is the world - which is everybody.
........
A: This is a big thing you are saying. It would be nice if you could explain it a bit better. When you say John persists, John continues
because there is a continuation of the vulgar in him - the vulgar being worldly, material association.
K: That is right: fear, wanting power, position.
A: Desire to be as an entity.
K: So that, because that is a common thing of the world and the world does incarnate.
A: You say the world does incarnate.
K: Take the mass of the people. They are caught in this stream and that stream goes on. I may have a son who is part of that stream
and in that stream there is John also, as a human being who is caught in it. And my son may remember some of John's attitudes.
A: Ah, but you are saying something different.
K: Yes.
A: You are saying that John is contained in all the memories that different people have of him. In that respect we can see that he does
exist. Because I remember a friend of mine died not long ago, and it was very clear to me when I thought about it that in fact he was
very much alive in the memories of all the people who had loved him.
K: That's just it.
A: Therefore, he was not absent from the world, he was still in the stream of events which we call the world, which is the lives of
different people who had associated with him. In that sense we see that he can perhaps live forever.
K: Unless he breaks away from it - breaks away from the stream. A man who is not vulgar - let's use that word, vulgar, representing all
this ... greed, envy, power, position, hatred, desires, all that - let's call that vulgar. Unless I am free from the vulgar, I will continue
representing the whole of vulgarity, the whole vulgarity of man.
A: Yes, I will be that vulgarity by pursuing it, and in fact incarnating in it, giving it life.
K: Therefore I incarnate in that vulgarity. That is, first I can project John, my brother.
A: In my thought and imagination or remember him. The second point, I can pick up his kinetic energy, which is still around.
K: His smell, his taste, his saying the words....
........
K: Third, the thought remains in the room....
A: One might say, the psychic equivalent of his kinetic energy.
K: Yes....
K: Thought, will, if he has a very strong will; active desires and thought, they also remain.
A: But that's not different from the third point. The third point is that thought remains, which is will, which is desire.
K: The fourth point is the stream of vulgarity.
A: That's not very clear.
K: Look, sir, I live an ordinary life, like millions and millions of people.
A: Yes, pursuing goals, hopes and fears.
K: I live the usual life. A little more refined, a little bit higher or lower, along the same current, I follow that current. I am that current. Me,
who is that current, is bound to continue in that stream, which is the stream of me. I'm not different from millions of other people.
A: Therefore are you saying, sir, even, dead I continue because the things which were me are continuing.
K: In the human being.
A: Therefore, I survive. I was not different from the things which filled and preoccupied my life.
K: That's right.
A: Since these things which filled and occupied my life survive, in a manner of speaking I survive since they do.
K: That's right. That's four points.
........
A: The question is about the fifth. Is there a conscious thinking entity who knows that he is conscious when everybody has said, "There
goes poor old John," even put him in the ground. Is there a conscious entity who immaterially says, 'Good gracious, they've put that body
in the ground but I have consciousness of being alive.'
K: Yes.
A: That is the question which I think is difficult to answer.
K: Sidney was asking that question.
A: Because we see that everybody does exist in these other ways after death.
K: Now, you are asking the question. Does John, whose body is burned - cremated - does that entity continue to live?
A: Does that entity continue to have its consciousness of its own existence?
K: I question whether there is a separate John.
A: You said at the beginning, is there such a thing as a permanent ego? You said obviously not.
K: When you say that John, my brother, is dead and ask whether he is living, living in a separate consciousness, I question whether he was
ever separate from the stream.
A: Yes.
K: You follow what I am saying, sir?
A: Was there a John alive?
K: When John was alive, was he different from the stream?
A: The stream filled his consciousness of himself. His consciousness of himself was the stream knowing himself.
........
K: No, sir, just go slowly. It's rather complicated.The stream of humanity is anger, hate, jealousy, seeking power, position, cheating, corrupt,
polluted. That is the stream. Of that stream is my brother John. When he existed physically, he has a physical body, but psychologically
he was of this. Therefore was he ever different from this? From the stream? Or only physically different and therefore thinking he
was different. You follow my point?
A: There was an entity who was self-conscious ...
K: ... As John.
A: He was self-conscious, and the stream was in relationship to himself.
K: Yes.
A: My wife, my child, my love.
K: But was John inwardly different from the stream? That's my point. Therefore what is dead is the body. And the continuation of John
is part of that stream. I, as his brother, would like to think of him as separate because he lived with me as a separate being physically.
Inwardly he was of the stream. Therefore, was there a John who was different from the stream? And, if he was different, then
what happens? I don't know if you follow....
........
K: My point is, this is what is happening with one hundred million people. Millions of people. As long as I swim in that stream, am I
different? Is the real John from the stream?
A: Was there ever a John?
K: That's all my point.
A: There was conscious determination which felt itself to be John.
K: Yes, but I can imagine. I can invent because I am different.
A: There was imagination, thought, calling itself John.
K: Yes, sir.
A: Now, does that thought still call itself John?
K: But I belong to that stream.
A: You always belong to the stream.
K: There is no separate entity as John who was my brother, who is now dead.
A: Are you saying that there is no individual?
K: No, this is what we call permanent. The permanent ego is this.
A: What we think is individual.
K: Individual, the collective, the self.
A: Yes, the creation of thought which calls itself self.
K: It is of this stream.
A: That's right.
K: Therefore, was there ever a John? There is only a John when he is out of the stream.
A: That's right.
........
K: So first we are trying to find out if there is a permanent ego which incarnates.
A: The nature of the ego is impermanent.
K: Reincarnation is in the whole of Asia, and the modern people who believe in it say there is a permanent ego. You take many lives so
that it can become dissolved and be absorbed in Brahma and all that. Now, is there from the beginning a permanent entity, an entity
that lasts centuries and centuries? There is no such entity, obviously. I like to think I'm permanent. My permanence is identified with
my furniture, my wife, my husband, circumstances. These are words and images of thought. I don't actually possess that chair. I call it
mine.
A: Exactly. You think it's a chair and you own it.
K: I like to think I own it.
A: But it's just an idea.
K: So, watch it. So there is no permanent self. If there was a permanent self, it would be this stream. Now, realizing that I am like the
rest of the world, that there is no separate K, or John, as my brother, then I can incarnate if I step out of it. Incarnate in the sense
that the change can take place away from the stream. In the stream there is no change.
A: If there is permanence, it is outside the stream.
K: No, sir, permanency, semi-permanency, is the stream.
A: And therefore it is not permanent. If it is permanent, it is not the stream. Therefore, if there is an entity, then it must be out of the
stream. Therefore, that which is true, that which is permanent, is not a something.
K: It is not in the stream.
A: That's right.
.....
K: When Naudé dies, as long as he belongs to the stream, that stream and its flow is semi-permanent.
A: Yes, It goes on. It's a historical thing.
K: But if Naudé says, I will incarnate, not in the next life, now, tomorrow, which means I will step out of the stream, he is no longer
belonging to the stream; therefore there is nothing permanent.
A: There is nothing to reincarnate. Therefore, that which reincarnates, if reincarnation is possible, is not permanent anyway.
K: No, it's the stream....
A: A separate entity is not real.
K: No, as long as I belong to the stream ...
A: I don't really exist ...
K: There is no separate entity. I am the world.
A: That's right.
K: When I step out of the world, is there a me to continue?
A: Exactly, It's beautiful.
K: So, what we are trying to do is justify the existence of the stream.
A: Is that what we are trying to do?
K: Of course, when I say I must have many lives and therefore I must go through the stream.
A: What we are trying to do, then, is we are trying to establish that we are different from the stream.
K: We are not.
A: We are not different from the stream.
........
K: So, sir, then what happens? If there is no permanent John or K or Naudé or Zimbalist, what happens? You remember, sir, I think I
read it in the Tibetan tradition or some other tradition, that when a person dies, is dying, the priest or the monk comes in and sends all
the family away, locks the door and says to the dying man, 'Look you're dying - let go - let all of your antagonisms, all your worldliness,
all your ambition, let go, because you are going to meet a light in which you will be absorbed, if you let go. If not, you'll come back.'
Which is, come back to the stream. You will be the stream again.
A: Yes.
K: So what happens to you if you step out of the stream?
A: You step out of the stream, you cease to be, but the you which was, was only created by thought, anyway.
K: Which is the stream.
A: Vulgarity.
K: Vulgarity. What happens if you step out of the stream? The stepping out is the incarnation. Yes, sir, but that is a new thing you are
coming into. There is a new dimension coming into being.
A: Yes.
........
K: Now, what happens? You follow? Naudé has stepped out of the stream. What happens? You are not an artist. Not a businessman.
You are not a politician, not a musician, all that identification is part of the stream.
A: All the qualities.
K: All the qualities. When you discard that, what happens?
A: You have no identity.
K: Identity is here. Say, for instance, Napoleon, or any of these so-called world leaders: they killed, they butchered, they did every horror
imaginable, they lived and died in the stream, they were of the stream. That is very simple and clear. There is a man who steps out of
the stream.
A: Before physical death?
K: Of course; otherwise there is no point.
A: Therefore, another dimension is born.
K: What happens?
A: The ending of the dimension which is familiar to us is another dimension, but it cannot be postulated at all because all postulation is in
terms of the dimension we are in.
K: Yes, but suppose you, living now ...
A: Step out of it.
K: Step out of the stream. What happens?
A: This is death, sir.
K: No, sir.
A: This is death, but not physical death.
K: You see, you step out of it. What happens?
A: Nothing can be said about what happens.
K: Wait, sir. You see, none of us step out of the river, and we are always from the river, trying to reach the other shore.
A: It's like people talking about deep sleep from awakeness.
K: That's it, sir. We belong to this stream, all of us. Man does belong to the stream and from the stream he wants to reach that shore,
never leaving the river. Now the man says, all right, I see the fallacy of this, the absurdity of my position.
A: You can't state another dimension from the old dimension.
K: So I leave that. So the mind says, "Out!" He steps out and what takes place? Don't verbalize it....
........
K: You know what it means to step out of the stream: no character.
A: No memory.
K: No, sir, see: no character, because the moment you have character it's of the stream. The moment you say you are virtuous, you
are of the stream - or not virtuous. To step out of the stream is to step out of this whole structure. So, creation as we know it is in the
stream. Mozart, Beethoven, you follow, the painters, they are all here.
A: I think perhaps, sir, sometimes that which is in the stream is vivified, as it were from something which is beyond.
K: No, no, can't be. Don't say these things because I can create in the stream. I can paint marvelous pictures. why not? I can compose
the most extraordinary symphonies, all the techniques ...
A: Why are they extraordinary?
K: Because the world needs it. There is the need, the demand, and the supply. I'm saying to myself what happens to the man who
really steps out. Here in the river, in the stream, energy is conflict, in contradiction, in strife, in vulgarity. But that's going on all the
time...
A: Me and You.
K: Yes, that's going on all the time. When he steps out of it, there is no conflict, there is no division as my country, your country.
A: No division.
K: No division. So what is the quality of that man, that mind that has no sense of division? It is pure energy, isn't it? So our concern is
this stream and stepping out of it.
A: That is meditation, that is real meditation, because the stream is not life. The stream is totally mechanical.
........
K: I must die to the stream.
A: All the time.
K: All the time. And therefore I must deny - not deny, I must not get entangled with - John who is in the stream.
A: One must repudiate the things of the stream.
K: That means I must repudiate my brother.
A: I must repudiate having a brother. You see what that means?
K: I see my brother belonging to this, and as I move away from the stream my mind is open. I think that is compassion.
A: When the stream is seen from that which is not of the stream.
K: When the man of the stream steps out and looks, then he has compassion.
A: And love.
K: So, you see, sir, reincarnation, that is, incarnating over and over again, is the stream. This is not a very comforting thing.
I come to you and tell you my brother died yesterday, and you tell me this. I call you a terribly cruel man. But you are weeping for
yourself, you are weeping for me, for the stream. That's why people don't want to know. I want to know where my brother is, not
whether he is."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reference: A conversation in 1972 with Alain Naudé & Mary Zimbalist following the death of Sidney Field's brother, John Field, pp. 135-157,
from the book The Reluctant Messiah, Paragon: New York, 1989; edited by Peter Hay; Copyright, 1989, Sidney Field.
The above quote is courtesy of a page on the Katinka Hesselink website.
(Ellipses added, in bold; all other ellipses, as pauses or interruptions, are in the original; paragraphs, as in ........, are added)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commentary: There is reincarnation. The stream of humanity is what reincarnates - the stream being consciousness as we know it, the movement of the 'separate,' fictional self. The images of thought, and the image-maker, which is the ego. This is the vulgar (corrupt) society in which everyone lives. We represent and are identified with this vulgarity, through envy, fear, desire and ambition. We simply do not challenge it - in a completely docile manner we accept all of it because we have been trained from childhood to do so. This self will die over time (it survives death temporarily in the form of the stream of desire) but the human stream itself continues, in humanity as a whole. And we all contribute to and strengthen it by not stepping out of it.

This self, this ego, is conflicted energy - thus fear. It is division, which is fragmentation: my self against your self, my ideas against your ideas, my ideology (that is, conservative) against your ideology (liberal), my religion against your religion, my religious sect against your religious sect (Christianity alone, it is said, has now splintered into some twenty thousand sects), my possessions against your possessions, my money against your money, my political party against your party, my country against your country. All this must be repudiated at its core - even if to deny it you must repudiate your brother, your family, your wife or partner, even your job. This is to stand completely alone, psychologically speaking, accepting no authority and letting life carry you as regards physical survival (in the talks elsewhere, there is mention of complete security when one denies all psychological security - and this is not a paradox. There is some greater force, or power, that operates; there is a state of life in which there is absolute security, in insecurity).

Step out of this stream and you end this division that has existed since time immemorial between all human beings. End the self and thought and there is pure energy, which is called compassion, love. This energy, which cannot be destroyed, is the creative emptiness that lies at the heart of all things. It is eternal. (Emptiness is the natural or ground state of the universe, as in vacuum energy, or what is known as the zero-point field. This is the emptiness of vast interstellar space, which although it is a sea of fluctuating quantum energy, is empty of visible matter. Likewise, all matter is really empty, as the atom which comprises everything, including obviously all of us, is 99.99% empty space.)

Actual physical death, therefore, has no intrinsic meaning. Death is simply the end of the form, which in nature signifies renewal. That is, death is an intrinsic part of life itself, death is essential for renewal to take place. Psychological death is rebirth, part of the universal cycle of all things. It is eternity... and it exists in another dimension. Science cannot explore it as it is beyond the reach of the brain's intellect.

So, step out of the stream when you are alive and something else entirely different happens. But this cannot be communicated directly in words, though words can be found to point to it. The key, as always in the entire talks, is the silent, empty mind.
(NB: This is a commentary on only part of the content in the above discussion.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Conversation with Three Entities, including Death, in a Hospital Room:

"It was a short operation [in 1977] and not worth talking about, although there was considerable pain. While the pain continued I saw or discovered that the body was almost floating in the air.... a few minutes later there was the personification - not a person - but the personification of death. Watching this peculiar phenomenon between the body and death, there seemed to be a sort of dialogue between them. Death seemed to be talking to the body with great insistence and the body reluctantly was not yielding to what death wanted....

Death was more and more demanding , insisting and so the other intervened. Then there was a conversation or a dialogue between not only the body, but this other and death. So there were three entities in conversation.

...Though the person [Mary Zimbalist] was sitting there and a nurse came and went, it was not a self-deception or hallucination.... One felt very strongly and clearly that if the other had not interfered death would have won ...

The dialogue began in words with thought operating very clearly....

During this conversation there was no sense of time.... Words ceased to exist but there was an immediate insight into what each one was saying. Of course if one is attached to anything - ideas, beliefs, property or person, death would not come to have a conversation with you. Death in the sense of ending is absolute freedom.

Most Extraordinary Discussion - on the Stream of Humanity, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can step out of the stream of humanity - it is possible, some have done it, which implies that everyone can do it. It's only non-understanding that prevents us from stepping out of the prison of mind self-centeredness that we accept as normal and inevitable in life.
"[Physical] Death has no meaning."
(Krishnamurti and Bohm dialogues: 1985, pp. 149-53)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One has to find out for oneself what it means to die [psychologically]; then there is no fear, therefore every day is a new day -
and I really mean this, one can do this - so that your mind and your eyes see life as something totally new. That is eternity."
(The Awakening of Intelligence: Talk & Dialogue, New York City, April 24, 1971)

"El cielo existe de verdad"

Celestial Sales for Boy’s Tale of HeavenBy JULIE BOSMAN
Published: March 11, 2011

Just two months shy of his fourth birthday, Colton Burpo, the son of an evangelical pastor in Imperial, Neb., was rushed into emergency surgery with a burst appendix.
He woke up with an astonishing story: He had died and gone to heaven, where he met his great-grandfather; the biblical figure Samson; John the Baptist; and Jesus, who had eyes that “were just sort of a sea-blue and they seemed to sparkle,” Colton, now 11 years old, recalled.
Colton’s father, Todd, has turned the boy’s experience into a 163-page book, “Heaven Is for Real,” which has become a sleeper paperback hit of the winter, dominating best-seller lists and selling hundreds of thousands of copies.
Thomas Nelson, the book’s publisher, said it had broken company sales records. The publisher, based in Nashville, began with an initial print run of 40,000 copies. Since the book came out in November, it has gone back to press 22 times, with more than 1.5 million copies in print. On the New York Times best-seller list for paperback nonfiction last Sunday, “Heaven Is for Real” was No. 1. The book remains in the top spot this coming Sunday.
Much of the book’s success has been fueled by word of mouth, since it did not begin with the usual best-seller channels: there has been no elaborate book tour, big-name publisher or brand-name author. But it has gained traction with a few well-placed appearances on the morning show “Fox & Friends,” “The 700 Club” and CNN.
The book has sold just as strongly in national chain bookstores like Barnes & Noble as it has in Christian specialty shops, said Matt Baugher, the vice president and publisher of Thomas Nelson. Mass merchants like Wal-Mart have pushed the book heavily in their stores, and large orders from churches and ministry groups are growing steadily.
“We all are perhaps desperate to know what is on the other side of the veil after we die,” Mr. Baugher said, adding that his initial skepticism about the Burpo family’s story was short-lived. “This was a very down-to-earth, conservative, quote-unquote normal Midwestern family. We became fully convinced that this story was valid. And also that it was a great story that would just take off.”
The book was an instant hit in Barnes & Noble outlets and was near the top of the best-seller list on its bn.com. The chain’s religion buyer was an early advocate for the book, ordering copies for every store, said Patricia Bostelman, the vice president for marketing at Barnes & Noble.
“When you buy the religion subject, you are presented with many stories about heaven, personal experiences about near-death and the afterlife,” Ms. Bostelman said, noting that several other books with “heaven” in the title have sold well recently. “But what was unusual about this book was that it was the story of a little boy. It deactivated some of the cynicism that can go along with adults capitalizing on their experiences.”
Todd Burpo wrote the book with Lynn Vincent, who collaborated with Sarah Palin on “Going Rogue.” Mr. Burpo, the pastor of Crossroads Wesleyan Church in Imperial, a farming community in southwest Nebraska, said in an interview that he had shouldered some criticism over it.
“People say we just did this to make money, and it’s not the truth,” Mr. Burpo said, referring to anonymous online comments about the book. “We were expecting nothing. We were just hoping the publisher would break even.” (He said he planned to give away much of the royalty income and spend some of it on home improvements.)
At first, he and his wife, Sonja, were not sure if they could believe their son’s story, which came out slowly, months and years after his sudden illness and operation in 2003. The details persuaded them, Mr. Burpo said. Colton told his parents that he had met his younger sister in heaven, describing her as a dark-haired girl who resembled his older sister, Cassie. When the Burpos questioned him, he asked his mother, “You had a baby die in your tummy, didn’t you?” While his wife had suffered a miscarriage years before, Mr. Burpo said, they had not told Colton about it. “There’s just no way he could have known,” Mr. Burpo said.
And the Burpos said that Colton painstakingly described images that he said he saw in heaven — like the bloody wounds on Jesus’ palms — that he had not been shown before.
Eventually the Burpos decided to tell their story beyond their town. Mr. Burpo, in his Sunday sermons, had already introduced some anecdotes to his congregation. Through a pastor friend, they met Joel Kneedler, an agent with Alive Communications, a Christian literary agency in Colorado Springs. Mr. Kneedler sold the book to Thomas Nelson, a publisher known for Christian titles like “40 Days With Jesus” by Sarah Young. The advance was in the low five figures.
The book’s list price is $16.99, but that is discounted to $9.34 on amazon.com.
At the outlets of Barbara’s Bookstore, an independent chain mostly in the Chicago area, the book is No. 1 on the store’s nonfiction best-seller list. Interest in it began to perk up around mid-February, said Greg Sato, a store manager.
“Of the nonfiction books lately that seems to be the one that people are asking about the most,” Mr. Sato said. “I have pegged it in the same vein as ‘The Five People You Meet in Heaven’ or ‘The Shack.’ Like an Oprah book, but a little more religious or spiritual.”
Colton, who appears as a blond, round-faced little boy on the cover of the book, now plays the piano and trumpet, is fascinated by Greek mythology, listens to Christian rock and loves Nebraska football.
Telling his story matter-of-factly, Colton said he was pleased that people were finding the story inspirational.
“People are getting blessed, and they’re going to have healing from their hurts,” he said. “I’m happy for that.”





Celestial Sales for Boy’s Tale of HeavenBy JULIE BOSMAN
Published: March 11, 2011

Just two months shy of his fourth birthday, Colton Burpo, the son of an evangelical pastor in Imperial, Neb., was rushed into emergency surgery with a burst appendix.
He woke up with an astonishing story: He had died and gone to heaven, where he met his great-grandfather; the biblical figure Samson; John the Baptist; and Jesus, who had eyes that “were just sort of a sea-blue and they seemed to sparkle,” Colton, now 11 years old, recalled.
Colton’s father, Todd, has turned the boy’s experience into a 163-page book, “Heaven Is for Real,” which has become a sleeper paperback hit of the winter, dominating best-seller lists and selling hundreds of thousands of copies.
Thomas Nelson, the book’s publisher, said it had broken company sales records. The publisher, based in Nashville, began with an initial print run of 40,000 copies. Since the book came out in November, it has gone back to press 22 times, with more than 1.5 million copies in print. On the New York Times best-seller list for paperback nonfiction last Sunday, “Heaven Is for Real” was No. 1. The book remains in the top spot this coming Sunday.
Much of the book’s success has been fueled by word of mouth, since it did not begin with the usual best-seller channels: there has been no elaborate book tour, big-name publisher or brand-name author. But it has gained traction with a few well-placed appearances on the morning show “Fox & Friends,” “The 700 Club” and CNN.
The book has sold just as strongly in national chain bookstores like Barnes & Noble as it has in Christian specialty shops, said Matt Baugher, the vice president and publisher of Thomas Nelson. Mass merchants like Wal-Mart have pushed the book heavily in their stores, and large orders from churches and ministry groups are growing steadily.
“We all are perhaps desperate to know what is on the other side of the veil after we die,” Mr. Baugher said, adding that his initial skepticism about the Burpo family’s story was short-lived. “This was a very down-to-earth, conservative, quote-unquote normal Midwestern family. We became fully convinced that this story was valid. And also that it was a great story that would just take off.”
The book was an instant hit in Barnes & Noble outlets and was near the top of the best-seller list on its bn.com. The chain’s religion buyer was an early advocate for the book, ordering copies for every store, said Patricia Bostelman, the vice president for marketing at Barnes & Noble.
“When you buy the religion subject, you are presented with many stories about heaven, personal experiences about near-death and the afterlife,” Ms. Bostelman said, noting that several other books with “heaven” in the title have sold well recently. “But what was unusual about this book was that it was the story of a little boy. It deactivated some of the cynicism that can go along with adults capitalizing on their experiences.”
Todd Burpo wrote the book with Lynn Vincent, who collaborated with Sarah Palin on “Going Rogue.” Mr. Burpo, the pastor of Crossroads Wesleyan Church in Imperial, a farming community in southwest Nebraska, said in an interview that he had shouldered some criticism over it.
“People say we just did this to make money, and it’s not the truth,” Mr. Burpo said, referring to anonymous online comments about the book. “We were expecting nothing. We were just hoping the publisher would break even.” (He said he planned to give away much of the royalty income and spend some of it on home improvements.)
At first, he and his wife, Sonja, were not sure if they could believe their son’s story, which came out slowly, months and years after his sudden illness and operation in 2003. The details persuaded them, Mr. Burpo said. Colton told his parents that he had met his younger sister in heaven, describing her as a dark-haired girl who resembled his older sister, Cassie. When the Burpos questioned him, he asked his mother, “You had a baby die in your tummy, didn’t you?” While his wife had suffered a miscarriage years before, Mr. Burpo said, they had not told Colton about it. “There’s just no way he could have known,” Mr. Burpo said.
And the Burpos said that Colton painstakingly described images that he said he saw in heaven — like the bloody wounds on Jesus’ palms — that he had not been shown before.
Eventually the Burpos decided to tell their story beyond their town. Mr. Burpo, in his Sunday sermons, had already introduced some anecdotes to his congregation. Through a pastor friend, they met Joel Kneedler, an agent with Alive Communications, a Christian literary agency in Colorado Springs. Mr. Kneedler sold the book to Thomas Nelson, a publisher known for Christian titles like “40 Days With Jesus” by Sarah Young. The advance was in the low five figures.
The book’s list price is $16.99, but that is discounted to $9.34 on amazon.com.
At the outlets of Barbara’s Bookstore, an independent chain mostly in the Chicago area, the book is No. 1 on the store’s nonfiction best-seller list. Interest in it began to perk up around mid-February, said Greg Sato, a store manager.
“Of the nonfiction books lately that seems to be the one that people are asking about the most,” Mr. Sato said. “I have pegged it in the same vein as ‘The Five People You Meet in Heaven’ or ‘The Shack.’ Like an Oprah book, but a little more religious or spiritual.”
Colton, who appears as a blond, round-faced little boy on the cover of the book, now plays the piano and trumpet, is fascinated by Greek mythology, listens to Christian rock and loves Nebraska football.
Telling his story matter-of-factly, Colton said he was pleased that people were finding the story inspirational.
“People are getting blessed, and they’re going to have healing from their hurts,” he said. “I’m happy for that.”

"Knowledge is always limited. So the brain, having found security in the movement of knowledge,
clings to it and translates every incident, according to the past. In the movement of ending of continuity
[knowledge] is complete order. This insight is the revolution in the structure of the brain."
(Pupul Jayakar Biography: Chapter 38, page 413)

Neuroplasticity (and neurogenesis) are the new branches of neurology showing that thinking, learning and acting (ie, the overall environment) can physically change the brain's anatomy. Essentially, they are the study of the brain's capacity to change itself, to generate new neurons. That is, mutation. Based on extensive and unequivocal animal studies and limited studies on humans, it has toppled the decades old scientific idea of genetic determinism. It has shown neuroscientists a glimpse of the power of the mind to actually change the structure of the brain, the power of self-transformation, which is not restricted by the ageing process of the brain. We can change the structure of the brain at any age:

"... although we have deeply ingrained ways of thinking and although the brain comes with some hardwiring, we also have the possibility of changing. The idea that we are constantly changing means there is no intrinsic nature to the self or the mind, which is what Buddhism teaches. Instead, both self and mind are extremely plastic. Our activities inform who we are; as we act, so shall we become. We are products of the past, but because of our inherently empty nature, we always have the opportunity to reshape ourselves."
(Francisca Cho, Buddhist scholar at George Washington University - Begley: Train Your Mind, page 13)

Piojos en el espacio

ARQUITECTURA ESPACIAL

Usted está aquí

Guía fundamental para el viajero intergaláctico

Perderse en el universo es una tarea bastante sencilla. No sólo desorienta su inmensidad, también confunde la ausencia de referencias claras como las de arriba o abajo. Por eso, las indicaciones de los astrónomos tranquilizan: “La Tierra está en el sistema solar y el sistema solar se encuentra en uno de los brazos de la Vía Láctea, que gira en torno a su eje una vez cada 250 millones de años —aclara Tissera—. Nuestra galaxia, a su vez, tiene como vecina a la galaxia de Andrómeda y a varias galaxias satélites”.

Pero eso no es todo. Para ubicarse bien en el universo hay que tener paciencia y mucha imaginación: la Vía Láctea y la galaxia de Andrómeda forman el llamado Grupo Local, constituido por 27 galaxias en total. El cúmulo de galaxias más próximo al Grupo Local es el llamado Cúmulo de Virgo, que comprende varios miles de galaxias. Ambos cúmulos forman parte de una estructura mayor que se conoce como Supercúmulo Local, un cúmulo de cúmulos, que en conjunto se mueven en la misma dirección.

“Si uno ve al universo parece medianamente uniforme pero en realidad tiene estructuras, como si fuera un gran coral. Lo que sabemos es que las galaxias no están desparramadas azarosamente en el universo, como si llenaran un gran vacío. Forman filamentos, especie de hilos o paredes conformados por millones de galaxias —continúa Tissera—. Hay regiones que llamamos voids o vacíos donde la densidad de galaxias es muy baja. En la intersección de los filamentos es donde hay mayor concentración de masa”.

A uno de estos filamentos galácticos descubiertos en 1989 se lo conoce como “la Gran Muralla” y se extiende a lo largo del espacio a más de 500 millones de años luz. Eso fue lo que advirtieron los cartógrafos del cielo que a partir del año 2000 arrancaron con una inspección profunda en el marco del proyecto “Sloan Digital Sky Survey” (www.sdss.org).

Recurriendo un poco a la arquitectura, los astrónomos usan mucho la imaginación para visualizar y explicar el universo. “A mí me gusta pensarlo como una gran casa —concluye Tissera—. Como decía, sus ladrillos son las galaxias pero también hay paredes, habitaciones, zonas vacías e intersecciones”.

Lisa Randall, la celebrity de la física teórica. MUY Interesante Argentina, mayo 2011.

Considerada una de las científicas más importantes del momento, esta investigadora de la Universidad de Harvard, Estados Unidos, tiene una visión particular y personal del cosmos. Sostiene que hay muchas más dimensiones que las que perciben nuestros sentidos y que la idea de la existencia de universos paralelos es más factible que descabellada.

Lisa Randall lo sabe. Cada vez que una amiga, familiar o conocido le pide que le explique de una vez por todas cuál es su objeto de estudio, en lugar de disiparle las dudas se las multiplica. Sus temas de investigación son tan abstractos y especulativos que incluso a varios de sus colegas les cuesta seguirle el paso. “Muchas veces en medio de conversaciones me doy cuenta de que veo el universo de una manera diferente a mis amigos”, confiesa esta física teórica estadounidense de la Universidad de Harvard, especialista en universos paralelos y dimensiones extras.

La complejidad de aquello que la intriga y desvela, sin embargo, no impidió que esta neoyorkina de 48 años muy parecida a la actriz Jodie Foster escalara hasta convertirse en una de las científicas más importantes del mundo en la actualidad. No sólo es una de las investigadoras más citadas en papers; Lisa Randall es toda una celebridad: en 2007, por ejemplo, la revista Time la consideró una de las cien personas más influyentes de nuestra época.

“Me interesa aquello que no podemos ver: las dimensiones ocultas del universo —cuenta la autora del libro Warped passages: Unraveling the mysteries of the Universe’s hidden dimensions en el último congreso de la sociedad científica más importante del planeta, la American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), realizado en Washington, Estados Unidos—. Nuestros sentidos están configurados para percibir sólo tres dimensiones espaciales y una temporal pero las últimas teorías nos indican que hay muchas más”.

—¿El universo es un lugar extraño o predecible?

—Es misterioso. A veces tengo la impresión de que lo que vemos es sólo una pequeña fracción de lo que hay en realidad. Pero desde hace tiempo sabemos que allá afuera hay mucho más que lo que nos dicen nuestros ojos. Los rayos X y los rayos infrarrojos, por ejemplo, nos demostraron que tenemos una percepción muy acotada. ¿Por qué debería haber sólo tres dimensiones: ancho, alto, largo? ¿Por qué podemos ver únicamente tres? Sólo vemos un universo tridimensional. Uno se sorprende al saber que no hay ninguna ley física que establezca que tiene que haber sólo tres dimensiones. Las ecuaciones de Einstein funcionan para cualquier número de dimensiones.

LOS SECRETOS DEL COSMOS

—¿De dónde viene la idea de las dimensiones extra?

—En 1919, un matemático y filósofo alemán llamado Theodor Kaluz sugirió la existencia de cinco dimensiones extras, a pocos años de publicada la teoría de la relatividad general de Albert Einstein. Los años pasaron y la idea se consolidó. La teoría de cuerdas, aquella que busca combinar la mecánica cuántica y la teoría de la relatividad y sostiene que el tejido del universo está formado por pequeñas cuerdas vibratorias, afirma que debería haber 11 dimensiones o más. La idea de dimensiones extras cambió la manera en que muchos físicos pensamos el universo.

—¿Tienen nombre?

—No, por ahora no. El universo tiene sus secretos y las dimensiones extras del espacio son uno de ellos. Estoy segura de que el universo es muy diferente a lo que vemos e imaginamos.

—¿Cómo se las imagina?

—Un ejemplo utilizado entre los físicos para describirlas a aquellos que no son físicos es el de la soga, el equilibrista y la pulga: imaginemos una soga colgando a cierta altura entre dos postes. Un equilibrista que camine sobre ella sólo puede moverse en una dimensión, adelante o atrás. Sin embargo, una pulga que se encontrase por ahí “sentiría” a las dos dimensiones restantes, ya que podría moverse hacia adelante y atrás pero también sobre la circunferencia de la soga. La gran diferencia entre el equilibrista y la pulga es el tamaño. Para objetos más pequeños que la circunferencia de la soga, esa dimensión extra es observable mientras que el trapecista, mucho más grande, no tiene acceso a ella. Eso nos estaría pasando a nosotros con el resto de las dimensiones más allá de las tres con las que nos manejamos y percibimos.

—Pero, ¿hay pruebas de la existencia de estas dimensiones extras?

—Aún no, son temas abstractos y especulativos. Son teorías muy matemáticas. Falta de evidencia observacional pero hay que empezar por alguna parte. Además, por eso los físicos estamos tan contentos con el Colisionador de Hadrones o LHC, el superacelerador suizo. Estamos entrando en una nueva era en la física. Para acceder a las escalas donde podrían ser detectadas estas dimensiones extras necesitamos colisiones a energías muy altas como las que provoca el superacelerador. Y aunque por ahora no arrojó grandes resultados, todo lo que sale del LHC es sorprendente.

—¿Usted qué espera encontrar, por ejemplo?

—A mí, particularmente, me gustaría poder detectar “partículas Kaluza-Klein”, es decir, aquellas capaces de viajar entre dimensiones. Es cuestión de tener paciencia. Hasta no hace mucho, nadie entendía cómo funcionaba el cuerpo humano, cómo circulaba la sangre o cómo se transmitían los genes de una generación a la siguiente. Cada vez que exploramos distintas escalas del universo, hallamos algo distinto que cambia nuestra visión de la realidad. Y eso es lo que está sucediendo con las dimensiones extras.

—¿Cómo le cayó que el LHC haya sido bautizado mediáticamente como “la máquina de dios”?

—Una estupidez. La física es suficientemente interesante como para querer adornarla con esos guiños marketineros. Como científico, intento decir las cosas como son.

MUCHOS UNIVERSOS

—El universo en cierto sentido es antiintuitivo, ¿no le parece?

—Absolutamente. Si hay algo que nos enseñó la mecánica cuántica es que la experiencia cotidiana no puede revelar cómo funciona el universo. Es todo cuestión de escalas. El universo podrías ser totalmente diferente a lo que pensamos. Eso es lo fascinante de la física: reconocer que lo que uno ve no es todo lo que hay.

—Uno de los ejemplos más claros es la existencia de la materia oscura, ¿no es cierto?

—Exacto. Sólo el 4% del universo está hecho de materia común y corriente, o sea, aquella que forma todo lo que vemos, nuestros cuerpos, el sol, las galaxias, etcétera. El universo también está hecho, en un 23%, de lo que se conoce como materia oscura, que en realidad debería llamarse “materia transparente” porque no interactúa con la luz. El 73% restante sería energía oscura, que es todo otro tema. No sabemos porqué hay tan poca materia y tanta materia oscura.

—En los últimos años, conceptos más habituales de las novelas, películas y series de ciencia ficción saltaron a la física: en su momento ocurrió con los agujeros negros y ahora con las dimensiones extras y los universos paralelos.

—Es cierto. De confirmarse la existencia de otros universos allá afuera tendría un gran impacto cultural. Confirmaría algo que ya sabemos: que no somos especiales. La Tierra no es el centro del universo y, por si fuera poco, nuestro universo sería uno entre muchos.

—¿Y cómo se imagina esos otros universos?

—Para empezar hay que aclarar que al hablar del multiverso o de universos paralelos muchas personas tienden a pensar en la existencia de copias de sí mismas en otros universos.

—Como en la serie Fringe.

—Sin embargo, no creo que sea tan así. Será muy difícil probarlo porque no interactuamos con ellos. Podrían tener propiedades totalmente distintas al nuestro. En ellos podría no haber estrellas. También podría haber leyes físicas y fuerzas distintas, su química podría ser diferente y en vez de neutrones y quarks sus átomos podrían estar hechos con otros ingredientes. Con sólo alterar levemente una de las cuatro grandes fuerzas de la naturaleza cambian muchas las cosas. Hay infinidad de posibilidades. Sólo imaginarlo resulta fascinante. La física es una actividad más creativa de lo que la gente cree.

RECUADRO I

TEATRO CIENTÍFICO

Una obra en cinco dimensiones

Además de un libro donde divulga sus teorías, Lisa Randall escribió el guión de una ópera llamada Hypermusic, Prologue.

Aunque parece dura, muy seria y hasta estricta, Lisa Randall en realidad tiene ganas de que el común de la gente —o sea, no físicos— comprendan al menos a grandes rasgos el concepto de dimensiones extra. Para eso publicó un libro en 2005 y, después, fue un poco más allá: se animó a escribir el guión o libreto de una ópera basada en sus teorías. Fue en 2009 y la obra en cuestión se llamó “Hypermusic, Prologue. A projective opera in seven planes”. Contó con música del compositor catalán Héctor Parra (hijo de un físico teórico) y se estrenó primero en el Centro Pompidou de París y luego en el Foyer del Liceu de Barcelona.

“Los cruces entre ciencia y literatura, entre ciencia y arte, son siempre interesantes pero hay que tener en cuenta dónde termina la ciencia y dónde comienza la ficción o la especulación —aclara Randall—. Hay diversos niveles de comunicación de la ciencia: una paper, un libro, una ópera, una documental, una película, una obra de teatro. Todos se complementan”.

En la ópera, basada en su libro Warped passages, la soprano cruza a la quinta dimensión para explorarla, mientras su pareja, el barítono, se niega a acompañarla.

“Mucha gente me contactó para hacer algo artístico con mi trabajo, pero sólo esta propuesta me pareció una muy buena idea —confiesa—. Es un experimento; me fascinó ver cómo podíamos transportar algunas ideas y emociones muy abstractas a la música y el arte. Está bueno que haya gente interesada en mezclar arte y ciencia”.

El trabajo del catalán Héctor Parra fue también muy ambicioso. Tuvo que ponerle música a aquello que no se ve ni se escucha. “Esta ópera no pretende que el público comprenda la teoría física de Lisa Randall, sino que experimente en su propia piel el espacio deformado por esta quinta dimensión científicamente imaginada —señala—. Que la viva en tanto que experiencia psicoacústica y catártica de carácter metafórico. Creo que esta es precisamente una de las principales funciones y méritos del arte”.

ARTE Y CIENCIA

EL MUNDO A ESCALA

Lisa Randall fue la curadora de una muestra en la que varios artistas exploran el concepto de escala en el tiempo y el espacio

Además de ser una muy buena escaladora, Lisa Randall es fanática del arte. Tanto que cuando la Asociación de Arte de Los Ángeles, Estados Unidos, le ofreció el año pasado el puesto de curadora de la muestra Measure for Measure no dudó un segundo en decir que sí.

De esta manera nació esta exhibición en la que varios artistas —como Zig Gron, Katrina McElroy, Felicity Nove, Barbara Parmet, Susan Sironi, Elizabeth Tobias y Meeson Pae Yang— exploran el concepto de escala en el tiempo y el espacio.

“Me gustó la idea de armar una instalación que no sólo fuera arte representando a la ciencia ni ciencia pretendiendo ser arte —cuenta Randall—. Lo interesante fue pensar las ideas que subyacen estos dos mundos. La idea de escala es crucial tanto en física de partículas como en relatividad general, cosmología e incluso en el arte. Al volver pequeño un gran objeto o al hacer grande un artefacto cotidiano fuerza al observador a reconsiderar su mirada sobre el mundo”.

En Measure for measure no sólo hay pinturas sino también esculturas, videos e instalaciones. Muchas de las piezas emplean espejos, sombras y proyecciones para mostrar la interrelación entre lo pequeño y lo grande y también para crear mundos dentro de otros mundos.

Susan Sironi, por ejemplo, jugó con ilustraciones de Los viajes de Gulliver —obra que desafía los conceptos de tamaño y escala de los lectores— y Katrina McElroy visualizó a partir de cientos de círculos (en los que se ven rostros) patrones de vuelos de aves.

“La ciencia es parte de la cultura —concluye Randall— y el arte absorbe la ciencia y crece a partir de ella también”.
Jean Pierre Changeux se ríe contagiosamente. Pero no se ríe solo. Con él —el neurocientífico más importante de Francia y uno de los más respetados del mundo—, se sacuden todos sus átomos, vibran sus moléculas y se convulsionan a la vez cada una de las cien mil millones de neuronas que conforman aquella masa gris, gelatinosa y de pliegues casi infinitos compactada en una palabra: el cerebro o, como le gusta repetir con convicción y con la musicalidad propia del francés a este investigador del Instituto Pasteur y miembro del Collège de France, “¡le cerveau, le cerveau!”.

Poco a poco, el cerebro humano comienza a comprenderse a sí mismo. Desde hace poco más de 30 años, las neurociencias —con el tiempo, fragmentada en una constelación de disciplinas— despojan a esta “caja negra” de sus misterios. Y Changeux estuvo ahí, en cada etapa, como protagonista y espectador de lujo. Este conocido coleccionista de arte del siglo XVII (“mis pintores favoritos son Nicolas Poussin y Georges de La Tour”, confiesa) guió el camino con sus trabajos decisivos para entender cómo funciona el tráfico bioquímico en el cerebro, fue testigo de la evolución de una metáfora rígida a otra más plástica, colocó la piedra fundacional de la neuroética y la neuroestética y, sobre todo, tendió puentes con filósofos, sociólogos y demás investigadores de las ciencias sociales (o “sciences humanitaires”, como le dicen los francófonos) para acorralar y comprender interdisciplinariamente al objeto más complejo que se conoce de nuestro universo.

“Hace 30 años, en Francia había una separación muy marcada y tajante entre humanidades y la biología —cuenta Changeux en su paso por Buenos Aires, invitado por la Fundación Crimson, donde aprovechó para presentar en la Alianza Francesa su último libro, Sobre lo verdadero, lo bello y el bien de Katz Editores—. Cada intento que hacíamos por entablar diálogo entre estos dos campos era rechazado tanto por los conservadores y religiosos que preferían seguir concibiendo el alma separada del cerebro como por la izquierda, los marxistas, a los que sólo les interesaba ver al cerebro como un reflejo del estado de la sociedad. Pero el cerebro no es un espejo, es todo un actor. Afortunadamente, las cosas fueron cambiando con el tiempo. Cada vez hay más reuniones de neurocientíficos con antropólogos, sociólogos y demás representantes de las humanidades en una especie de naturalización de las preguntas filosóficas básicas”.

—En 1983, usted publicó su libro El hombre neuronal y produjo todo un revuelo. ¿Qué cambió en el campo de las neurociencias en estos años?

—La concepción e idea que teníamos sobre el cerebro evolucionó. Ahora los científicos y hasta el público en general sabemos más sobre cómo funciona. El hombre neuronal fue el primer libro en el que se hacía algo así como una síntesis de las ciencias del cerebro y se explicaba su complejidad, de los genes y las moléculas a las redes neuronales y de ahí a la génesis del pensamiento consciente. Sorprendentemente, el libro se vendió mucho pero hubo también muchas reacciones en contra. No quería pelearme con nadie pero muchos terminaron peleándose conmigo. Aún perduraba la idea de que hay una escisión entre el alma y el cerebro. Son resabios del platonismo y del pensamiento cartesiano: la dualidad cuerpo-mente. Pero esa idea no va más, la neurociencia abolió esta distinción arcaica. Mientras las ciencias de la naturaleza se liberaron de a poco de las cadenas del dogma religioso, la idea del espíritu como entidad biológica fue ganando terreno. Desterrado el vitalismo, ahora sabemos que la conciencia es una función corporal, es un proceso que emerge de la actividad neuronal en el cerebro.



—El cerebro, entonces, podría ser visto como un campo de batalla política e ideológica: desde Descartes con su distinción dualista entre res cogitans y res extensa al dogma católico de un alma humana inmortal.

—No lo creo. El cerebro no es un campo de lucha. Es un objeto, más bien, de reconciliación. Así lo veo. Cuanto más sepamos del cerebro, más sabremos de la naturaleza humana. Ayuda a luchar contra las divisiones. En mi opinión, el estudio del cerebro es el mejor camino para entender a los seres humanos y sus diferencias; para responder a la pregunta “¿quiénes somos?”, para mejorar nuestra comprensión de la identidad personal, de la conciencia, del juicio moral y de la intencionalidad. Somos hombres y mujeres neuronales, criaturas neurobiológicas y sociales. Mejorar la comprensión de nuestra arquitectura cerebral nos permitirá, por ejemplo, educar mejor a nuestros hijos, desarrollar nuevos medicamentos contra enfermedades insidiosas como el Mal de Alzheimer o el autismo.

—Según la investigadora estadounidense Martha Farah, la capacidad creciente de la especie humana para comprender el cerebro influirá en la historia con tanta fuerza como el desarrollo de la metalurgia en la edad de hierro, la mecanización durante la revolución industrial o la genética en la segunda mitad del siglo XX.

—Espero y anticipo que el desarrollo de las ciencias del cerebro nos dará nuevos métodos terapéuticos. En los últimos años se pusieron de moda los modelos que nos ayudan a analizar y simular la manera en que el cerebro funciona. Esperamos construir computadoras inspiradas en la organización interna del cerebro y en su funcionamiento. Hay un programa en Europa llamado The Human Brain Simulation Project. Con él buscamos comprender a fondo cómo funciona el cerebro y simularlo en computadoras y, quién dice, en el futuro, construir autómatas o robots humanizados.

—Hablando de computadoras, ¿los neurocientíficos siguen pensando al cerebro en los términos de esta metáfora algo rígida?

—No tanto, la verdad que hace mucho que no se ve al cerebro como una máquina, como una laptop. Nuestro cerebro es mucho más elaborado y complejo que cualquier chiche electrónico, incluso más que las colosales supercomputadoras que hacen millones de cálculos en un segundo. El cerebro, más bien, es un órgano plástico, proyectivo y narrativo que actúa consciente e inconscientemente de manera autónoma. Muchas veces no nos damos cuenta de que nuestro cerebro está operando constantemente. A la noche y durante el día está activo. No importa que no digamos nada, el cerebro siempre está trabajando. Es lo que llamo “actividad espontánea” del cerebro. El sentido común dice que lo tenemos que estimular para que funcione. Pero no es cierto. El cerebro trabaja espontáneamente. Por supuesto, los estímulos que recibimos del exterior, de nuestro ambiente, son importantes para construir nuestros pensamientos y para tomar decisiones. Pero el cerebro no se toma vacaciones. Está activo desde incluso antes del día de nuestro nacimiento hasta el día en que morimos. Nuestro cerebro se la pasa anticipando lo que ocurre en el mundo exterior. Constantemente proyectamos hipótesis. No somos máquinas biológicas que operan de manera automática sino seres capaces de influir en nuestra realidad y de crear sentido.

—¿Cuál es el rol de la cultura en todo esto? ¿De alguna manera recablea nuestro cerebro?

—La cultura esculpe nuestros cerebros. No somos observadores neutrales. Nos transforma. La cultura, la sociedad y el ambiente esculpen en el cerebro circuitos estructurales generadores de cultura que permiten formar representaciones. El cerebro se forma en 15 años. En todo el desarrollo del ser humano hay una gran plasticidad. Las sinapsis se multiplican: las neuronas se conecta y desconectan. Nuestros cerebros producen cultura y la cultura se internaliza en nuestros cerebros. Hay una simbiosis causal entre las estructuras socioculturales y la estructura neurobiológica. El cerebro es un órgano complejo y dinámico de permanente interacción con el ambiente y la cultura. La arquitectura de nuestros cerebros determina nuestro comportamiento social y nuestras disposiciones morales, lo que influye en el tipo de sociedad que creamos. Y viceversa: nuestras estructuras socioculturales influyen en el desarrollo de nuestros cerebros. El lenguaje y las reglas de conducta dejan huellas, se internalizan en sus propios circuitos neuronales. Son los que llamo “circuitos culturales”.

—Entonces, ¿hay tal cosa como el cerebro francés o el cerebro argentino?

—Así es. Hay diferencias locales. Incluso las personas analfabetas tienen circuitos neuronales distintos a los de las personas alfabetizadas. Su conectividad es diferente. La interacción con la cultura es crítica, fundamental.

—¿Y se puede decir que Internet está cambiando nuestros cerebros?

—Así es. Internet es un nuevo lenguaje. Mi nieto usa todo el día consolas de videojuegos, celulares, chatea en la web. “Está practicando sus sinapsis”, me dicen mis colegas.

—Usted es conocido también por sus trabajos pioneros en neuroestética. ¿En qué consiste este nuevo campo de estudio?

—Es una disciplina en desarrollo. El primer congreso sobre el tema se realizó en San Francisco en 2002. Consiste en analizar las bases neurales de la contemplación de la obra de arte y su creación, inspeccionar las áreas cerebrales que intervienen en la elaboración y recepción de una pintura o una canción. Sabemos que la empatía, la simpatía, las diversas emociones fundamentales, positivas o negativas, tienen bases neurales. Junto a los científicos, los médicos y los fisiólogos, los artistas muchas veces han sido los investigadores más perspicaces en materia de fisiología de las pasiones. Sería muy interesante hacer un examen exhaustivo de la actividad cerebral de un poeta mientras escribe o de un lector mientras disfruta y siente placer leyendo un poema.

--O sea, reintroduce el principio de placer en la ciencia.

—Como suelo decir, no hay ciencia sin placer ni arte sin razón.

BÁSICO

JEAN PIERRE CHANGEUX (Domont, Francia, 1936)

Neurobiólogo francés, miembro del Collège de France y director del Laboratorio de Neurobiología molecular del Instituto Pasteur. Autor de más de seiscientos trabajos científicos, entre sus libros figuran El hombre neuronal (1983), Materia de reflexión (en colaboración con el matemático Alain Connes), Razón y placer (Tusquets), Lo que nos hace pensar: la naturaleza y la regla (en colaboración con Paul Ricoeur), El hombre de verdad y Sobre lo verdadero, lo bello y el bien (Katz).

videos: http://wn.com/Jean-Pierre_Changeux

(recuadro)

La neurobiología de la moral

El cerebro está rodeado. Hace tiempo que los neurocientíficos —neurobiólogos, neuroquímicos, psiquiatras— dejaron de ser sus únicos interrogadores, aquellos que con sus escaners, sus equipos de resonancia magnética, sus electroencefalogramas y cámaras de positrones sondean la actividad de este enjambre de neuronas interconectadas, el órgano de la individualidad.

La extraordinaria complejidad cerebral barrió con los límites impuestos históricamente por la burocracia y la división social del trabajo. En estos últimos años y sobre todo a lo largo de lo 90, la “década del cerebro”, las fronteras entre las disciplinas comenzaron a disolverse. “La interacción entre neurobiología y ciencias humanas es irreversible e irremediable”, confiesa Jean Pierre Changeux, investido como Doctor Honoris Causa por la Universidad de Buenos Aires, y conocido también por sus diálogos con el filósofo y antropólogo francés Paul Ricoeur y con el matemático Alain Connes.

La razón es obvia: en su breve pero trepidante tiempo de existencia, las neurociencias no pudieron contener ni dar respuesta por sí solas a las problemáticas colaterales y dilemas éticos que surgieron con el tiempo producto del estudio del cerebro humano.

Mientras que el conocimiento del cerebro aumenta, aquello que considerábamos privado y extremadamente íntimo —nuestros pensamientos más inconfesables— está cada vez más abierto a la mirada de los otros.

Ya lo había pronosticado en 1992 el neurocientífico Gerald Edelman: “lo que ocurre actualmente en neurociencias puede ser considerado como un preludio a la revolución científica más grande que pueda haber, una revolución con consecuencias sociales importantes e inevitables”.

Cada vez con más fuerza, los problemas éticos de la genética se están trasladando a las neurociencias. De ahí surgió, entonces, la necesidad de la conformación un una nueva rama o disciplina, la neuroética, encargada de explorar los interrogantes filosóficos y morales que se abren en la investigación y vigilar los posibles conflictos que arrecian. “La neuroética es una interfaz entre las ciencias empíricas del cerebro, la filosofía, la ética y las ciencias sociales —cuenta la sueca Kathinka Evers, investigadora en el Centro para la Investigación en Ética y Bioética de la Universidad de Uppsala, quien también pasó por Buenos Aires invitada por la Fundación Crimson y presentó su libro Neuroética: cuando la materia despierta (Katz Editores)—. La neurociencia es una ciencia joven que corre los riesgos de seguir los caminos de la genética cuyas expectativas han sido exageradas. Es una ciencia que crea esperanzas y enciende alarmas a la vez. Ya aparecen signos inquietantes: tentativas de identificar el cerebro terrorista o de desarrollar drogas que modifiquen el cerebro con fines militares”.

El progreso de la ciencia, se sabe, despierta interrogantes éticos. “Se trata de evitar lo que ya hicieron durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial los criminales nazis en Alemania —señala Changeux—. No podemos aceptar experimentos en seres humanos en los que no se respete la dignidad humana o en los que no haya un consentimiento informado. Es fundamental la discusión de las consecuencias del avance de las investigaciones neurocientíficas. Por ejemplo, ¿qué ocurriría si llegásemos al punto de ver o leer los pensamientos?”.

Evers extiende estos interrogantes y los lleva al campo de la psicofarmacología y el de la manipulación del cerebro. “Esta industria evoluciona hacia una ciencia de la creación de drogas racionales, que apuntan a mejorar funciones cerebrales como la memoria, el humor, el apetito, la libido, el sueño. Estas posibilidades de mejoría o upgrades suscitan problemas éticos importantes y problemas ligados a políticas sociales. ¿Qué es un cerebro humano normal o mejorado? ¿Cómo se mide en este campo el desvío entre lo que es normal y lo que es mejorado, y quién está autorizado a decidirlo? Nos encontramos en un momento único en la historia. ¿De qué manera vamos a reaccionar y a utilizar este conocimiento? Debemos permanecer vigilantes pero la vigilancia no debe impedir el optimismo”.
Entrevista a la astrofísica Patricia Tissera, publicada en Muy Interesante Argentina enero de 2011.

Desconocidas hasta hace 250 años, estas verdaderas islas espaciales giran y se desplazan silenciosamente por el universo. Pero no lo hacen solas. Estas colecciones de estrellas y planetas se agrupan, más bien, en cúmulos y colosales filamentos. La formación de las galaxias sigue siendo un misterio para científicos como esta investigadora argentina que estudia su evolución para responder las eternas preguntas: quiénes somos y a dónde vamos.




En una noche de 1755, Immanuel Kant miró hacia arriba y se llenó de sorpresa con lo que vio en el cielo. Al filósofo alemán —aquel que nunca salió de su ciudad natal, Königsberg, en la por entonces Prusia, y que escribió una de las obras fundamentales del pensamiento occidental, Crítica de la razón pura— siempre le interesaron las ciencias en general pero la astronomía era su perdición. De hecho, mucho no comulgaba con la idea compartida por los astrónomos de su época que aseguraban que el universo era una especie de enjambre de estrellas distribuidas al azar por todos lados. “¿Por qué se ven más estrellas en una franja del cielo que en el resto de la bóveda celeste?”, se preguntaba Kant, por ejemplo. Y entonces se decidió: investigó por su cuenta —más de noche que de día— y publicó (anónimamente) un libro titulado Historia general de la naturaleza y teoría del cielo en el que esbozaba una respuesta.

Además de teorizar sobre el origen del universo y de los cometas, la historia del Sol y la formación de la Luna y de los anillos de Saturno, el filósofo señaló que la Vía Láctea era un gran disco de estrellas y, más importante aún, sugirió que lo que para muchos eran nebulosas en realidad se trataba de “universos islas”, o sea, discos de estrellas distantes, similares a la Vía Láctea, desparramados por el cielo. Un filósofo y no un científico había sido uno de los primeros en proponer la existencia de otras galaxias además de la nuestra.

A 255 años de aquella pionera proposición (la discusión sobre la existencia o no de otras galaxias concluyó en 1920), los astrofísicos buscan responder uno de los grandes interrogantes de la ciencia: cómo se formaron y cómo evolucionan estos sistemas de estrellas, nubes de gas, planetas, polvo y materia oscura atados por la gravedad. “Las galaxias son los ladrillos del universo —cuenta la astrónoma cordobesa Patricia Tissera, investigadora del Conicet y del Instituto Argentino de Física del Espacio (IAFE-UBA) y reciente ganadora del Premio Nacional L´Oreal-Unesco “Por la mujer en la ciencia”—. Las estudiamos a través de simulaciones numéricas hechas por computadoras: construimos universos sintéticos que luego comparamos con el universo real”.

—Usted es la directora del Grupo de Astrofísica Numérica del IAFE. ¿A qué se dedican?

—A ver: por un lado, están los astrónomos que hacen observaciones y tratan de entender aquello que ven a través de telescopios. Y, por el otro, estamos nosotros, los llamados astrofísicos numéricos, que no hacemos observaciones. Más bien, buscamos ir más allá: pretendemos comprender y explicar aquello que se ve en los telescopios a través de modelos y simulaciones por computadora que nos permiten resolver lo que no podemos reproducir sencillamente: cómo las galaxias evolucionan, crecen, chocan entre sí.

—O sea, su laboratorio está dentro de las computadoras.

—Algo así. Las galaxias son sistemas no lineales porque muchos procesos físicos actúan al mismo tiempo. Son fenómenos muy complejos que no se pueden resolver con lápiz y papel. Por eso, recurrimos a los clusters o conjuntos de computadoras y al análisis numérico siempre partiendo de teorías físicas que nos dicen cómo debería moverse una galaxia. En las simulaciones, medimos velocidades, posiciones, cuántas estrellas de diferentes masas tienen, sus luminosidades, cuáles son sus propiedades químicas.

—¿Pero estos clusters cuentan con suficiente potencia para simular cada una de las cien mil millones de galaxias que se suponen que hay en el universo observable?

—En la Argentina, hay poder de cómputo para hacer desarrollos y pequeñas simulaciones de galaxias. Pero todavía no tenemos la capacidad para hacer cosas de mucho impacto. Por eso colaboramos con otros países. Así trabajamos. Desarrollamos modelos que permiten describir la evolución química de los componentes de una galaxia.

—¿Y trabajan con todo tipo de galaxias o con algunas en particular como las galaxias elípticas, enanas, irregulares?

—No, trabajamos con todas. Tratamos de entenderlas en su conjunto aunque a veces nos centramos en algunas en particular como las galaxias espirales, como la Vía Láctea, que son una fracción importante de las galaxias que hay en el universo.

FÓSILES Y PELÍCULAS GALÁCTICOS

—A su manera, ustedes, los astrónomos, son detectives del pasado. Lo que ven por los telescopios y simulan por computadora puede que ya no esté en el cielo. La luz tardá mucho en llegar a la Tierra.

—Exacto. Cuando un astrónomo mira al cielo ve estructuras del pasado, algo así como fósiles. Por eso es interesante lo que hacemos nosotros. Con las simulaciones podemos ver al universo como si fuera una película: la podemos rebobinar, poner en pausa y hasta adelantar. Seguimos al universo desde que nació, cómo evolucionó y también cómo evolucionarán las galaxias. Y eso sólo se puede hacer con simulaciones.

—A partir de lo que saben, ¿se ve en esas simulaciones cómo el universo se está expandiendo como afirman los que hablan de un “estado inflacionario”?

—Sí, las observaciones y las simulaciones muestran eso. Sabemos que en el universo existen dos tipos de materia: la materia luminosa, que vemos a nuestro alrededor, y la materia oscura, que es la materia dominante. Esto lo sabemos por el efecto gravitatorio que ejerce sobre el resto de la masa. Por eso se dice que la que determina el crecimiento del universo en gran escala es la materia oscura. También las simulaciones dan cuenta de la existencia de otro elemento: la llamada “energía oscura”, una fuerza que todavía los científicos no sabemos muy bien qué es. En teoría, explicaría la aceleración del universo y la progresiva separación de las galaxias. Lo interesante es que el universo no se va a expandir para siempre. En algún momento, la aceleración se va a ir frenando. Y no sabemos qué va a pasar después.

—¿Qué analizan dentro de las galaxias, por ejemplo?

—Estudiamos las supernovas y los materiales químicos que eyectan estas estrellas moribundas que enriquecen el medio, lo cual nos permite hacer una especie de mapa de elementos químicos de una determinada zona del espacio.

—Eso recuerda lo que decía Carl Sagan: “somos polvo de estrellas”.

—Sí, casi todos los elementos químicos que hay en el universo, incluso los que conforman nuestros cuerpos, fueron procesados originariamente en el interior de las estrellas.

UNIVERSO VIOLENTO

—¿Hacen simulaciones de choques de galaxias?

—Sí. Es muy interesante todo el proceso de interacción gravitatoria. Son procesos complicados y muy violentos en los que intervienen millones de partículas. Son fenómenos en los que reina también la confusión que se agiganta por la ausencia en astronomía de un sistema de referencia fijo. Pese a lo que se muestra en las películas de ciencia ficción, en el universo no hay ni arriba ni abajo, ni norte ni sur. Y hace rato que sabemos que la Tierra no es el centro de nada.

—¿Le sorprenden las formas que adoptan las galaxias? ¿Se pregunta por qué la materia tiende a organizarse en forma de galaxias?

—La gran responsable es la gravedad. Es el motor y principal fuente de energía del universo. Ella determina su movimiento y por qué las cosas son como son. A pequeña escala hay otros procesos, claro, pero a nivel general es la gravedad la que determina todo, la que atrae y permite la formación de estas estructuras. Las simulaciones y las observaciones demuestran una y otra vez que la teoría de Newton funciona más que bien.

—¿Cuán importante fue el desarrollo a partir de 1990 de supertelescopios como el Hubble, que cuentan con cámaras sensibles al infrarrojo, ultravioleta, rayos X y rayos gamma?

—Los grandes telescopios cambiaron la percepción humana del universo. Si bien ya nos acostumbramos a las imágenes impactantes de galaxias, no dejan de sorprendernos. Su poder de resolución es tan grande que podemos divisar detalles en cada una de estas estructuras.

—¿Qué es lo que aún no saben?

—Todavía no entendemos muy bien el proceso de formación de galaxias. Supuestamente, las galaxias se formaron por condensación de nubes de gas, mediante un proceso similar al que formó el Sol y el sistema solar. Pero en el universo actúan procesos físicos que aún no podemos simular ni comprender bien. Otro caso es el de los agujeros negros. Son objetos muy difíciles de modelar.

—Y los astrónomos solos no pueden hacerlo.

—Así es. La astronomía es una ciencia multidisciplinaria. Se basa mucho en la física, en la matemática y también en la química. Tiene mucho de teoría pero a la larga esas teorías se deben contrastar con las observaciones, con la realidad, para poder explicar por qué tenemos el universo que tenemos. La astronomía es sumamente compleja y necesita muchos desarrollos tecnológicos. Por eso, hay mucha colaboración en esta disciplina. En esa dirección estamos armando a nivel nacional lo que llamamos un “observatorio virtual”. Primero se lo conoció como Gala y ahora se llama Nova, siglas de “Nuevo Observatorio Virtual Argentino”. La idea consiste en hacer catálogos de galaxias simuladas o sintéticas a las que puedan acceder libremente científicos y estudiantes.

—Los dinosaurios y la astronomía son dos de los grandes temas que más atrapan a chicos y grandes. ¿Por qué cree que el espacio llama tanto la atención?

—Porque el universo tiene un grado importante de sorpresa y de incertidumbre. Es un gran misterio. Su vastedad abruma y a la vez despierta los interrogantes más ancestrales: “¿quiénes somos?” y “¿de dónde venimos?”.

RECUADRO

ARQUITECTURA ESPACIAL

Usted está aquí

Guía fundamental para el viajero intergaláctico

Perderse en el universo es una tarea bastante sencilla. No sólo desorienta su inmensidad, también confunde la ausencia de referencias claras como las de arriba o abajo. Por eso, las indicaciones de los astrónomos tranquilizan: “La Tierra está en el sistema solar y el sistema solar se encuentra en uno de los brazos de la Vía Láctea, que gira en torno a su eje una vez cada 250 millones de años —aclara Tissera—. Nuestra galaxia, a su vez, tiene como vecina a la galaxia de Andrómeda y a varias galaxias satélites”.

Pero eso no es todo. Para ubicarse bien en el universo hay que tener paciencia y mucha imaginación: la Vía Láctea y la galaxia de Andrómeda forman el llamado Grupo Local, constituido por 27 galaxias en total. El cúmulo de galaxias más próximo al Grupo Local es el llamado Cúmulo de Virgo, que comprende varios miles de galaxias. Ambos cúmulos forman parte de una estructura mayor que se conoce como Supercúmulo Local, un cúmulo de cúmulos, que en conjunto se mueven en la misma dirección.

“Si uno ve al universo parece medianamente uniforme pero en realidad tiene estructuras, como si fuera un gran coral. Lo que sabemos es que las galaxias no están desparramadas azarosamente en el universo, como si llenaran un gran vacío. Forman filamentos, especie de hilos o paredes conformados por millones de galaxias —continúa Tissera—. Hay regiones que llamamos voids o vacíos donde la densidad de galaxias es muy baja. En la intersección de los filamentos es donde hay mayor concentración de masa”.

A uno de estos filamentos galácticos descubiertos en 1989 se lo conoce como “la Gran Muralla” y se extiende a lo largo del espacio a más de 500 millones de años luz. Eso fue lo que advirtieron los cartógrafos del cielo que a partir del año 2000 arrancaron con una inspección profunda en el marco del proyecto “Sloan Digital Sky Survey” (www.sdss.org).

Recurriendo un poco a la arquitectura, los astrónomos usan mucho la imaginación para visualizar y explicar el universo. “A mí me gusta pensarlo como una gran casa —concluye Tissera—. Como decía, sus ladrillos son las galaxias pero también hay paredes, habitaciones, zonas vacías e intersecciones”.