Monday, December 29, 2014

To be, to act, or act upon, and in what portions? That is the question

The pains
of reflection;
so many facets
as sharp shards
of our own
page of stage.
Seeking the set
where others reflect from.

How do we look
upon what we might imagine
we want to be
seen as?

How perverse the need
for other windows
upon which to grind
the meat
of what we feed
back on.

You ask,
in the echos chambered
in the mind revolver
you cannot aim,
where's the edge
to cleave between
too little and
too much of being
an actor presenting
creative facts
of destruction.
Tearing down to buld
fragile shells
legoing as both the wall
and the thing
to humpty dumpty from.

We've cast
our minds as parts
of toys we make
to believe in,
even as we watch
what they show
us of what we've made
of play.
And thus becomes
a drug
for the power
in recognition and
the final zero sum
competiion of being
made of more
than the other guy.

Friday, December 12, 2014

What is Cosmolosophy?

I have been struggling of late with the contemplation of imagined scenarios of trying to extemporize an explanation of Cosmolosophy. I do these scenarios all of the time, imagining how this or that situation might play itself out; usually in the form of conversations I might have with different people. Informal conversations. Confrontational conversations. The list goes on, but the bottom line is that they get into a lot of the layers of what I might feel from an interaction. What others might feel, as well as how either of us might react as a consequence, and of course, what does it all mean.

Be that as it may, though, the question at hand is complicated precisely because I am still feeling through what Cosmolosophy is my self; and the upshot of that is the fact that the different aspects of it come to me as singular facets of understanding that don't necessarily lend themselves to an easy encapsulation into one reasonably brief explanation. Today is my sixty fourth birthday so I thought I might take a stab at it now. Perhaps 64 will be a lucky number as it, and its multiples, coincide with so much of information processing.

At this point in time I think that Cosmolosophy is an attempt to build a unified expression of a philosophical, and metaphorical, take on how sentient space and physical space interact with each other to form the entirety. It uses the concepts of Connection, Meaning and Mind to build the framework with which to understand why there are external meaning processing systems, as well as unique, internal meaning processing systems.

Within this framework Connection and Meaning play dual roles. In interior systems they are represented by the idea that two or more things in juxtaposition demand that the perceiver connect them in some meaningful way, whereupon they are labeled and become a thing in themselves as a natural part of creating layers of abstraction.

In exterior systems the tension of space, time, both in push and pull, is the expression of the same demand for connection and meaning. Bounded elements of matter are simply already constituted meanings that were abstracted as a part of another vector of experience association; which is to say another sequence of meaning connections initiated from a singular processing reference point. This is why I contend that Mind is so integral to having any particular reality in the first place. This is also why I can contend that Love, or the Elemental Embrace, is just another way of talking about a particular kind of connection and meaning.

In this kind of framework thoughtful, loving structure is essential if one is to avoid entropy on the one hand, or infinitely interactive, unbounded chaos on the other. Our place in this scheme is also essential as perceiving, and acting upon those perceptions (which is where the miracle of sentient choice comes in), need to keep the balance of interaction and objectification as much as is possible.

We make the physical just as the physical makes us. It is all a never ending iteration of questions and answers as the one creates the other. What does it mean has the corollary questions of why did this or that happen, and what will happen next, as well as what exactly are we confronted with in the ever moving “now.”

The process itself should have all of the divinity any spiritual person should ever require precisely because there is so much that will always have to be taken on faith; so much that will always defy objective measurement because of the infinite matrix of reality vectors stitching through a singular, unbounded whole. Vectors with a similarly infinite ability to cross talk between each other in a kind of feedback complexity we will never be able to fully grasp.

In this context spirit matters, literally and figuratively. What you think, how you think, as well as what you do from the choices you make, matter as well. Keeping at least one candle lit against the darkness. Caring. Empathizing. Creating in the context of what encourages more connection, and more positive meaning, is exactly what will continue to make more thoughtful, loving structure as a self reinforcing cycle of cause and effect.

What we are doing now is precisely very little of the above. What we have now as an organizational model does very little to encourage any of the above. That is why Cosmolosophy goes hand in hand with the need for finding a new model.

Think about this. Question it. Find your own answers and then find a way to do something about it.

Monday, December 8, 2014

Meaning, Connection and Mind. The Foundation for Thoughtful, Loving Structure

This is the second time I have endeavored to write this essay. I wrote the first one Saturday, saved it, so I thought, and closed down the document program to let it sit for a while before I came back to it for some polishing. Turns out this was not to be.

The save didn't work because I forgot that the security program I use (for virtually anti everything) has a new version of itself in place. This new version loves its “Sand Box” mode so much that the authors decided that certain applications ought to be run in it by default. And just to be sure we're all on the same page here, “Sand Box” mode in this context is simply a virtual work space inside of Windows. A mode I hasten to add is a must for web browsing. It was a default for the documents app simply because of the language this app was written in, which has newly discovered vulnerabilities.

I mention this only to illustrate one more aspect of how silly the human mind can be.

As you can imagine I was royally pissed. Took me all day to get passed it. To let go of that sense of unbelievable injustice. All feelings that I knew in one part of my mind were complete nonsense, but for which I was powerless to stop the flood of feeling over. I'm sure you get the picture.

The reason it's acute for me is that articulating something I feel is important is always an intense struggle; both as a joyous and frustrating experience. This is so because, for me, the vocabulary of any language is an immense block of stone. White marble perhaps as it relates to a blank sheet of paper.

In any case, though, every time I begin something I am confronted by the fact that, inside of that immense block, is virtually everything that we can know or feel; specified in a brilliant spectrum of forms of precision and effect; everything from coldly analytical, to obnoxiously ostentatious. You get to the part of the spectrum of the thing you want to express by chipping away at the inappropriate, as well as the irrelevant, fragments so that just the right balance between form and content are achieved; which of course never happens to the full degree possible. There is both joy and frustration at the mere fact of getting close; precisely because of how relative “close” can be.

I thought what I did yesterday was fairly close. And then I lost it. For that time yesterday I felt like I'd just chiseled out a form that would never be duplicated, which I then promptly dropped, letting if be smashed into a million bits of meaningless ones and zeros. Nonsense as already stated of course, but that's the human ego for you.

There were two things I wanted to cover here. The first was to explain why it sometimes takes me a while to post anything, and the second was to talk about how connection, and shared meaning, are vanishing all around us; and as a result, there comes to be less and less structure left to encourage the ability to counter this trend in the first place.

The first issue is simply what results when someone spends an inordinate amount of time as completely immersed as they possibly can be into the current roiling hurricane of fact, fiction, absurdity, breath taking discovery, and gut wrenching horror, that is the info-sphere today; that multichannel atmosphere for the mind that more or less renders the interaction of our physical world and the six billion or so people (as meaning processors) who make choices in it.

Precisely because of what I have indicated as trending now, it can take a toll on a person. It also doesn't help much when that person suffers from severe depression, even if they weren't so immersed. Severity punctuated by the fact that it takes the maximum recommended adult dosage of Sertraline to make it even approachable as manageable.

Mind you, I wanted to tell you this not because I need any sympathy. My youngest brother died of severe cerebral palsy at the age of six. He wasted away to the state of extreme starvation simply because we could not pump enough calories into him to offset the constant, virtually complete, body rigidity his lack of muscle control left his body in. And I mention that only to convey the degree to which I understand how lucky I am despite of anything else I've had to overcome. And to acknowledge as well that there are literally millions and millions of others, in various parts of the world, who continue to suffer in the extreme; as least as much, if not more, than my even my brother did. And that this is intolerable, unconscionable, as well as immoral.

The fact is, I feel that I owe those few of you who have continued to pay some attention to what I have had to say; as well as to those who simply haven't had a chance to happen upon it yet. I'd like to believe that you've kept the faith that there might be something here of importance. Just as I'd like to believe that I might have been lucky enough to stumble onto something important, let alone the ability to express it properly; even after over twenty years of trying.

I haven't given up because you haven't given up looking for some answers; regardless of whether my take on things is the right one or not; though I would certainly settle quite amicably for simply being temporarily useful in getting any and all to a better answer.

The fact of the matter is that meaning and connection ought to be of immense concern for all of us now. The expansion of our part of the universe is accelerating its rate of expansion, even as we seem to whirl away from meaningful ties to each other faster and faster as well.

Having said that, though, I am not trying to suggest that there is a direct linkage. A physicist will tell you that this expansion is all pervasive in the Cosmos, and that's certainly possible. Whatever the relative probabilities might be, it is also possible that this expansion is localized to the event horizon formed by the speed of light and the distance already created by past expansion (perhaps cutting us off from ever getting to, or getting anything from the rest of what was once a unified reality). We already know that the rate of expansion can change, as the great expansion illustrated early on. Perhaps we are bubbling out into our own zone of entropy; our own cold new reality.

In any case, though, I cannot help but believe that, whatever dark energy might ultimately be, it and our own disconnect, are related to some degree at least. I believe this because, at a philosophical level, there can be no meaning, just as there can be no referencing focal point to base relativity on, without singular meaning processing systems. And ultimately, a sentient entity has to be involved in making the whole notion of meaning processing possible in the first place. Sentient entities that observe, categorize, elaborate on and exercise choice based on that processing. For without that there would be no need for probabilities at all. Everything would simply be locked into the measured dictates of certain fundamentals in various wave/field equations.

But I am getting ahead of myself here. I want to provide you with a little bit of juxtaposition to help illustrate why this has come to a head for me at this point in time.

As those of you who have been reading recently will know, there are two books that have got me to thinking with a little more focus. Those are “The First Word” by Christine Kenneally and “The Evolution of Consciousness” by Robert Ornstein.

In addition, however, several movies have been kicking around in my head for years, and a recent one only made the rest stand out more. Those moves are “The Forbidden Planet,” “Avatar,” and most recently, “The Congress.”

Certainly there are others also related in theme, but these are the ones that I seem to keep referring back to.

In “The Forbidden Planet” Walter Pigeon, Leslie Nielsen, and Ann Francis are on hand to delve into the mystery of a race called the “Krell.” Nothing is left of the Krell on the surface of the planet Pigeon’s character, as the Philologist in a scientific team sent to study it, has come to find out. Only the truly immense (8,000 cubic miles) machine buried beneath the surface is left. Suffused with technology a million years ahead of our own.

The Krell destroyed themselves the moment they achieved what was supposed to be their crowning goal: the ability to affect the physical world without any immediate physical instrumentality. The ability to create, or change, anything of or around them with only a thought. All powered by this energy creating machine without equal.

As is usually the case, they hadn't anticipated all of the ramifications of what having this new ability might entail. Just a little thing like the lower brain left over from their rise, in evolutionary steps, from whatever species was lucky enough to find itself in not only a gravity dependent, three dimensional physical space, but with opposing digits, vertical symmetry, and at least one set of true arms and legs that would allow for running, climbing, throwing, carrying and, most importantly, grasping. For it is in the ability to grasp that we acquire the notion of handle. Because once you have a handle for everything you can begin to manipulate not only physical things on a whole new level, you are able to do the same with interior layers of abstraction; as in the naming of things which is the objectifying foundation of language.

That mistake cost them dearly as the lower brain is where all of the base instincts and emotions come from. The fears and lusts. The rage or rapture that being socialized, as cooperation had tremendous adaptive advantage, had to put constraints on. Learned responses to inappropriate urges that would make cooperating nearly impossible. The animal part of the brain that the sudden explosion of neurons and synaptic connections that overlaid it would come to try and ignore, and/or forget, most of the time. Passions that might not be so helpful if they were tied directly to a machine designed only to turn thought into action and effect.

The subconscious mind of Pigeon’s character is discovered to be responsible for killing all but him and his newly acquired wife out the original scientific team. Killed them because they wanted to leave a planet with such dangerous power and he didn't. He had stumbled upon the mind expansion apparatus. He had survived it where the captain of the expedition had not. And once expanded his mind could begin to unravel the Krell language. Unfortunately, it could also access the Krell thought translator, if only from within his dreams.

This story, you see, is a powerful metaphor. A metaphor best expressed for my part by the little turn of expression I use: “Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to receive, our fictions.”

Our society now, powered by an electrified form of Capitalism, approaches what the Krell created. It is an electric dream machine now precisely because that is what motivates consumption the best. And our technology winds up with ever more clever ways to not only encourage and shape the dreams, but to know what we might be dreaming at any given moment, and then to be able to produce whatever object or effect to best satisfy that dream; that fantasy. And to get it to you ever more quickly.

It can do this because all pervasive, external observation, is soon to be supplanted with instrumentality in direct contact with ever greater parts of our being; giving not only more fidelity and resolution to the data collected, but to what can then be returned as the thing consumed.

If you have seen the other movies on my list you can probably already see where I am going with this. “Avatar” alone prompted a lengthy essay on what I found to be the amazing contrast it presents concerning connection. A movie that broke new ground in creating a new, immersive viewing experience; all so that it could tell a story that had connection, and its relative lack thereof, as its primary focus. Portraying a native people absolutely connected to each other, as well as the unbelievably beautiful, and fantastic, world they lived in, being set upon by beings who have come to embody almost absolute disconnection with virtually everything around them.

On the surface it was a rather simplistic story of greed, partially belied by the “Unobtanium” the humans were supposedly there to mine; when of course we all know that what is really at stake here is power, and the base fear that creates the irrational need to horde whatever can be horded in the first place. Thinking that, by placating this one fear, we will be in control and nothing else will matter.

The last movie, however, is a real topper for me. A fine bit of punctuation to mark just how crazy the path we are on is. That movie, “The Congress,” has Robin Wright basically portraying herself. more or less. She is shown here to be an actress who has squandered virtually all of the acting opportunities she's been offered, after “Princess Bride,” because of her son. He has an unnamed affliction that will eventually leave him deaf and blind, while leaving untouched a mind that might be unbelievably creative; a physical disconnect that is suggested to be quite prescient in terms of where interactive technology might be going in the story.

Harvey Keitel plays her agent of long standing. The story starts with Keitel telling her that she has one last shot at securing a contract with Miramax. It will later be revealed that this contract will be to acquire her complete physical and emotional persona in the form of digital scanning. Once collected the studio will own all rights to the utilization of that persona in the portrayal of whatever character and story the studio wishes to undertake. From that point forward she will no longer be an actress of any sort, and banned from expressing her persona in any kind of portrayal for public or private consumption.

And thus do we see a new layering of abstraction. The old fear certain natives had of a picture capturing their soul takes a significant step towards being true. One person's nearly entire physical and emotional potential for expression captured inside a computer and ready for presentation of whatever the market desires (porn was excluded here, but you know that restraint wouldn't last long, seeing as how code is always vulnerable to attack and/or theft).

Ms Wright resists at first, of course, but in several truly heart breaking scenes with Keitel it is made clear to her that it is either this or nothing. It is so not only because of her proclivities for being difficult, but for the studio's desire to remove all human elements in the creation of this particular form of entertainment. Cost effective production demands it. Computer games are already having the movie industry's ass for lunch as it is. They have to compete more effectively or die.

The movie then jumps 20 years into the future. We then see a gray haired Robin Wright driving with stoic resignation towards a meeting with the heads of Miramax; now a Japanese and American conglomerate. They want to renew the contract but, as Robin will find out, they want to take her persona into a new realm of consumptive technology.

Not only have their chemists discovered the chemical means to have the human brain perceive and feel within an engineered reality that can be shared, they have gone the extra step of creating chemical formulations that would allow a person to assume all of the captured essence of the personalities of their choice while in these new “realities.” You simply drink the formula and you become that person.

The real kicker in this is that, in order to participate in this meeting, Robin must agree to sniff the concoction that puts her in the outlandish cartoon that the movers and shakers of the entertainment industry have decided is the “reality du jour.” The meeting site is, in fact, a restricted animation zone. And at the gala surrounding this meeting she will be used to announce that everyone can be whatever personality they desire to be, and to hell with “Miller Time.” If you think that's a buzz just wait till you can play around with Anniston, or Deschanel, or Jolie, or whoever else, from the inside out.

We get a feel for the kinds of chaos this kind of layered abstraction can have on connection and meaning, when rebels attack the gathering, but the movie ends with a kind of ambiguity and ambivalence towards what might ultimately be achieved by chemical manifestation of our deepest dreams. Ego may supposedly be freed from caring about achievement, or the lack thereof, and therefore jealousy, because we will all have the ability to find true nirvana. On the other hand, when Robin decides to remove herself from the shared fantasy, she sees the sorry state of the former “real world,” and those who still in habit it.

The other side of the coin, of course, is the direct electrical connection to the brain so that we might simply become self processed avatars of our own in endless plastic environments; limited only by imagination and raw computing power. That this might be a truly involving experience goes without question. What we have to recognize, however, is that one form of experience will always have things the other does not.

No matter what the fidelity that our techniques are able to achieve, there will always be certain elements that cannot be measured and abstracted completely, so as to be manipulable. Elements of effect and reaction that may well be at least as subtle as the butterfly wings whose movement in one place sets in motion a hurricane in another. Elements of life energy for instance that are impossible to fully understand, let alone know the importance of.

Our connection to meaning, and the structures that create those meanings, as well as the larger impact all of that has on the Cosmos in general, feeding back to us in turn, is ignored at the peril of a good deal more than just this one vector of experience association we like to think of as a reality. Meaning and Love go hand in hand. Just as abstraction and mind go hand in hand. The bottom line here needs to be the effort to live a proper balance between the two; knowing that this balance will seldom be symmetrical, and never static. In my opinion we will never be able to achieve even attempting to work this balance if we continue within the absurd commercial, commodity, form of social organization we call Capitalism. We must seek an alternative and we must begin as soon as we can.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Why sea dwellers have less need for layers of abstraction

This post has been prompted by more thoughts connected to the book “The First Word,” by Kristine Kenneally, as well as the book “Evolutionary Consciousness” by Robert Ornstein.

What I've been thinking about are the considerations one might apply to understand why dolphins, who's brains are larger than ours, don't have the same degree of language that we have. This is probably not that new, but it certainly is a fresh perspective for me.

It boils down to only 4 broad categories:

  1. Movement in three dimensions within a gravity well.
  2. The differences in the ongoing physical variations between sea and land based environments.
  3. The differences in species food chain integration because of the first two categories.
  4. The fact that, also because of the first 3 above, you would have had no need, let alone ability, to create fire, or tools, in the first place.

Let's look at these one by one.

The first consideration is obviously significant when you think about it in terms of adaptation strategies concerning movement up and down, as well as forward and back, when gravity is a prominent factor. Not only do plant species have to be quite clever in the competition for light, as well as to get their seed more widely dispersed, animals have to be at least as clever in negotiating a landscape of these plant variations, as well as the other animals moving within the same arena.

One could well argue that the sensory integration with motor skills, in this context, would be greater than that required for simply thrusting through a medium where relative degrees of buoyancy more effectively counters gravity than air does. Certainly the processing required for echo location under water is significant, as signified by a dolphin's brain. In air, however, processing sight and sound, as well as integrating the more varied motor skills demanded by gravity, would not only be an absolute necessity, it would require its own uniquely capable processor; especially if the creature was ever to develop higher amounts of mass to allow for more strength, size (in the sense of height for better seeing distance), as well as a bigger brain.

Wings certainly have an inherent limit. Multiple legs have advantages and limits, especially when having flexibility for a wide range of environmental conditions are desired. Two legs and two arms, however, with feet that provide subtle balance and leaping abilities, as well as hands that can grasp, with arms that can lift or carry, is quite another matter.

This, in and of itself, would demand a brain with huge amounts of neuronal plasticity so that sensory data could be quickly approximated in one abstracted grouping, so that other groups could have set, very complex motor responses, at the ready for instant reactions.

The second consideration concerns how much continuous variation is a given in a land based, as opposed to a sea based, environment. In this do we see how boundaries that are always in flux will favor the species with the most adaptability. If you think about the explosion of brain size that occurred at about the time of homo erectus; creating a brain able to do so many things that hadn't even been invented yet, in the light of providing maximum plasticity for any combination of physical environments, and the specific sets of unique, neuronal abstractions each would require, perhaps its not so surprising after all.

This is where we can now segue into the third consideration. For it is here that, given the complexities of different, constantly changing, environments, that integrating successfully into whatever given food and risk situation that might be at hand, being able to address the problem with the coordinated action of a group would be undeniably advantageous. It also illustrates why higher orders of motor skills become quite beneficial; especially when you consider how throwing (the first utilization of ballistics) a rock might evolve into throwing a spear, as well as why we were suddenly able to think of making extensions of our faculties with tools in the first place. At that point, grasping, and having a handle on things began to explode. From there coordinated action, in league with ever more abstraction, would lead to task division, and skill specialization.

In all of this do we see the ever present layering of abstractions; first in the grouping of neuron connections to approximate sensory data into instantly recognized bits of experience. Experience that has been associated with set elements of fear, joy, or curiosity. These then access other neuron groupings that experience as has indicated as a successful motor response. Because we then start cooperating, shared experience is given a common reference; at first with gesture and primitive sounds, but with each generation passing things along, giving the benefit of experience already associated to the new generation, and they then building on from there, I don't see that much reason for surprise at all for why we ended up with a language ability that is as amazing as it is now.

The last consideration is simply a logical result of what we've already summed up to this point. As with tools, and extending our various physical faculties, there is no better metaphor for the idea of becoming an effector, and manipulator, of your environment than the mastery of fire. Would there have been alchemy, and then any kind of science, if we first didn't start lighting things up as it were? Would there have been the smelting of metals? Would there have been any kind of applied power beyond that of muscle?

The interesting thing in my mind that still begs a questioning mind is why all of this ended up with an entity so self aware, and contemplative. The individual point of perceptive reference that puts the sentient into consciousness. I'm pretty sure that it has to do with the creation of so many external boundaries that an inner sense of self, separated from everything external, was inevitable, but that's certainly only an opinion. It's an assertion that deserves a lot more observation and consideration.  

#Cosmolosophy #MyCosmosPhilosophy

Thursday, November 20, 2014

The difference between information and language

I have been reading a marvelous book by Christine Kenneally titled “The First Word.”

It was published back in 2007 and seeks to do an overview of linguistics that covers not only how it attempts to explain how language came about, but to do so via the main schools of thought represented by Noam Chompsky, Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, Steven Pinker and Philip Lieberman.

This is a well laid out, and easily read, contrasting account of how these different schools approached a very complex question. I encourage everyone to get a copy and read it. It is fascinating even if you don't have a deep interest in understanding how language and consciousness go together.

This first post concerning the book is not meant to be a full review by any means. Even if I had finished it now (which I haven't), I would feel hardly competent to pass anything more than a layman's view of how Ms. Kenneally's work here comes across. So far, in that context, it has been great.

What has prompted a Cosmolosophy post now is her explanation of Chompsky's Generative linguistics; it's ground breaking approach that broke language down to its barest skeletal essentials, which could be applied to any language no matter where it originated. What got me thinking here was his, at least initial, insistence that evolutionary adaptations in general were really not useful in considering how language developed. She does point out that he later suggested that language might have had a role to play in adaptive advantage, but that “...its origins were more likely to have been accidental than the result of slow evolutionary change...” (page 38).

This got me to thinking not only because I come from an information, and systems perspective, but also because I was influenced early on by the views of consciousness expressed by Robert Ornstein; especially in works like “The Nature of Human Consciousness” and “The Evolution of Consciousness.”

Especially in the latter book does he talk about the idea of idealized “simpletons;” environmentally determined neuronal organizations of the brain that took the starting slate of immense plasticity and formed useful approximations of various stimuli. Obviously, some of this had the input of lower brain inheritance, and the limbic system of emotional stimulus and response, but in large part what we're talking about here is “down and dirty” interpretations that occur before the conscious part of the mind is aware of them. And as homo erectus had, by this time, a fairly complex array of sensory apparatus in hearing, seeing, smelling, as well as the various tactile aspects of skin, hair and fingers, quickly interpreting external events had to have a lot of discriminatory weighting ability; something that had to be placed at a lower level of abstraction or else the higher reasoning layers would have been overwhelmed. Survival behaviors would have had no chance to develop because there would have been no such thing as “muscle memory.”

What I am trying to get at here is how objectification is essential in any meaning assessment system. Information is useless without this lower level abstraction. The question, however, becomes where does information utilization as a process of environmental interaction end, and the labeling of these abstractions begin; not only for transfer in social settings, but for the necessary further steps of abstraction to begin so that higher orders of concept manipulation can occur?

It seems to me that information, in and of itself, is not necessarily language. Language is certainly the abstraction of information, but is it an unavoidable consequence of social entities who have already undergone significant aspects of objectification? My sense is that this is indeed the case, and more to the point, that this successive layering of abstraction is also an absolute necessity for there to be what we think of as “sentient” in the concept of consciousness. For only in this language topped layering can there be any way for a singular sense of self to form; what is for me the singularity of a meaning processing system that allows for the unique point of reference that is as fundamental to cosmology as it is for healthy social systems.

#Cosmolosophy #MyCosmosPhilosophy