Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Why Am I talking About Metaphorical, Cosmological Elementals At All?

Some of you may have been wondering why I've been spending so much post effort on this side of the mechanism of change I'm using (the sociopolitical side via Capitalism Is Obsolete, and the philosophical side here) lately. And more specifically, of course, why I would risk the potential flack, ridicule, or dilution of message conveying what's important in the bigger part of why we need change, on starting talk of cosmological elementals, of all things. Well, let me see if I can make that point clear.

In my opinion, with these two elementals, one can talk about important aspects in the very belief systems that predominate the world, and for which the differences of viewpoint, and the meaning systems that are created because of them, we have not only the strife so evident now, but the very difficulty of even being able to talk about it, or the specifics in the difficulties, in a way that can provide a common field of discussion. As such, I am hoping that Cosmolosophy can become that common field. As such, as well, you can see then, why my alternative strives for a specific mix of these "shorthands for tendencies" in both its intent, and its structure. The further hope being that it could also offer a kind of logical/feeling cover for seeing meaning in the need to tolerate each of the other frames of reference long enough to finally be on our way to making our own belief realities. And that, for me, is where this really gets interesting.

It seems to me that this parallels what the Entirety is already doing: namely instantiating, somehow, these possible paths of structure and meaning creation we call realities. And it is not nearly so far fetched as one might first think.

Just think about it. Off we go, each politically oriented, or religiously oriented, or whatever else oriented, vector into the universe. If we assume all things being equal in the tech and engineering that is utilized (and why wouldn't it be if we were all involved in creating those things -- so that everybody has the best that humanity has to offer in those regards; a covenant that must be honored or the whole enterprise is doomed from the start). And we also assume we have the wisdom to keep sharing as long as we can, it would then be up to that belief system to then see if it could sustain its own reality.

And these might actually turn into complete, separate realities, if for no other reason than, via expansion, and the limits of the speed of light, each vector of exploration, and habitat building, would eventually move beyond the direct information threshold to see any more of anything from the other vectors. Not to say we'd be out of all contact, of course; we'd still be able to do the possible "multipath" kind of indirect transfer, that we might be receiving now, but it would still constitute, for all intents and purposes for our perceptual limitations, to be separate realities.

So you might then say: "Well, it sounds like you're just trying to construct something we can all use to convince ourselves that something that has been intolerable so far, can have the way we look at it be changed enough so that it actually becomes tolerable?"

And to that I would reply: Yes. That is exactly what I am suggesting. Just as I am also suggesting that we can, in a way, describe ourselves into any reality we can dream up. This is the wonderful dichotomy inherent in the term Make Believe. Because we really can make something to believe in, we just need to be on the same page as to both how to talk about it, as well as what to talk about. Talking about it allows us to form a consensus on what, exactly we want to believe in, generally speaking (with that "generally" providing enough elbow room for everybody to keep the important aspects of their specific system in tact, without stepping out of the common framework) and then what might make sense in a living structure that also stays within that common framework. If we can get that consensus then it's simply mustering the will, each and every one of us, and the determination, knowing that sacrifices are going to have to be made, to work for what we've now created as Americans with a shared vision.

And on a personal note I can only say, the universe better be prepared because Americans with a shared vision are their own elemental force. And we are precisely the ones who can show the rest of the Entirety how it's done: How you actually can describe yourself into the reality you live, and express as, in the way you have always felt you were meant to.

To close here let me just say one last thing. I have been put in the unenviable position of being one of those people who come along, occasionally, to flip a switch. And the switch here can best be understood via the old aphorism "How can you know you are in the dark if nobody has ever turned the light on before. And this is unenviable not only because of the difficulty in even attempting to throw such "switches," but also because in this case it is one hell of switch flip on all of your asses; made all the worse because we are facing a very critical time factor here.

The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of things need to start getting done, and done quickly precisely because too much of what needs to be ultimately accomplished requires some pretty hefty lead times to set up; lead time setup that will have to compete with immediate problem solving so we can buy ourselves some time to get the lead up stuff done; all of which, of course, to give us the extra options we'll need, if things start getting really dicey on the planet.

I personally believe that, if we mobilize now; and by mobilize I mean on a level commensurate with what we did for World War 2 (not that we want in anyway to think of it as a war effort) we could take enough steps in the interim to make it be not only survivable, but livable. But we have to act ASAP because the threats we face are that serious:

The economic operating system we've been using is broken. Completely. Something for which there is now no possibility of fixing. There is human need in the world that absolutely must be addressed, for our own enlightened self interest, as well as to heed the call to common human decency and morality. And the planet itself has become fed up with our ignorance, greed, and petty tribalism. It is letting us know it is fed up because we've changed things in the atmosphere to make venting heat back into space not work as well as it used to. The sun needs to feed heat, and full spectrum light, to the planet of course, but there's always the possibility of too much, and so this particular part of Mother Earth has to keep playing the game of thermodynamics in overdrive; continuing to work to eliminate differentials.

So, much more water gets sucked up from the oceans and dumped, or not dumped, where it is needed. A lot more. And more wind gets to moving, blowing things down more, And more ice gets to melting, so more water gets hotter and circulation patterns have to change to account for it. On and on. Until eventually, unfortunately, even the fact the one of the poles is always away from the sun, there won't be much of any differential left at all. At which point, certainly, it will just become different degrees of baked.

And again, I will remind you all. It is not up to me to make this happen. I am here to attempt the articulation which would accomplish the hoped for flip of the switch. And poor thought this effort may be, it is the best that I was capable of doing. If there is indeed anything at all to be made of it, all of you must be a part of the making. That's just the way it is.

I await your answer.







Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The Things To Understand About Mother Earth, And Father Fortress.

In the one work of fiction I was able to do (in between being a programmer, and a Libertarian Socialist, and partly because I needed to show myself that I could do fiction, but also because I had to have a beginning vehicle with which to start talking about my Philosophy) "The Light Of Creation," I had in story names for the the two fundamentals of Cosmolosophy. They were clunky as hell names (The Crucible of Creation, and The Citadel of Certainty for The Elemental Embrace, and Mind respectively) that I didn't like at all at the time, but, for the life of me, I couldn't come up with anything else better to replace them with. Hopefully, I think I may have alternatives that I would like to propose. And those are, as you might already have guessed, are Mother Earth, and Father Fortress.

Let me also stress here that this is not an attempt to introduce some kind of quasi deities into a discussion of a philosophy. Not in the least. This is, rather, an effort to articulate essential tendencies in what I have already described as "unbounded infinite potential." And doing so using metaphorical entities as encapsulating shorthand to make the articulation easier to understand.

That being said, here is a beginning, or a continuation (it's hard for me to know which I stumbled into first), definition of these two elementals:

1. Mother Earth, or the Elemental Embrace, or Nature, or whatever else you want to call her, is the wild magic of unbridled fertility, riotous combination, creation, destruction and continual rebirth. It is the meaning space of the body, and physical space. Here the individual matters only as the possibility to keep the whole going. As such great pain, and pleasure. Extreme joy or sorrow. Equal desires for violence and calm. All are a part of her. And all must be born without question. The whole is all that matters, and choice is a luxury much too easily abused for her. The individual must always be sacrificed for the whole whenever needed. And always must each player in the game keep reproducing with the abandon appropriate to the wild animal lust it springs from.

2. Father Fortress is the rational objectifier who is the meaning space of the mind. He is the individual point of view created by an objectifying mind; a mind creating a separation between inner, and outer experience, so that mind can make meaningful connections on how things work around it as it grows in the process of associating living experience with the increasing accumulation of encapsulations that structure outside, and inside, experience relationships. And with that structure, and with the innate need to keep building more, does he make things to hold on to (which of course goes hand in hand for what we have a handle on, so as to be able to grasp at all in new ways). To be able to remember the things that work in the harsh world of physical space, where so many of the ways of "why" are still unknown the meaning processors. But of course he is also the one who cannot easily let go of the structures he has created. And cannot easily abide the change the always comes from the Mother Earth side. And of course, having identity, he is the one who most values the idea of choice, and is most insistent on the individual's right to keep it.

First, of course, is the question of possible false association of gender to either of these two elementals and the only answer that I can come up with so far, that feels even close to right, is to say that they are justified, and not justified, at the same time. This is difficult for me because I also see mother earth as possibly in terms of the Great Vagina, and Great Womb, that seduces, and induces surrender, and the falling into, of fullest immersion. Where then is the entity remade and born anew. Pretty much the Tantric idea of both perfect spiritual, and physical union. But then, of course, the thing to remember is that men are part women, and there's still a deep structural connection between us, and what is woman, despite the meaning systems of the other chromosome coding. So even if we were to try and do stereotypical finger pointing via gender types, we'd still be pointing at ourselves in a bit way, so it wouldn't make much sense to even try. All the while the guilt from the empathy thing, for either sex in dumping either elemental, (even though we are only talking metaphorically here), on them as "that is their gender thing," makes you feel uncomfortable for even considering doing.

Be that as it may, but also indirectly to related to the above, interestingly enough, is what I think might be the, perhaps unexpected, little detail of how Mother Earth is not where empathy comes from.

Empathy must come from the individual's choice to try and imagine what another meaning processor is experiencing. However, in order for that to have any real meaning, the individual must be able to access things through both Body Meaning space (at least in part) in order to more fully immerse themselves into as much of what that other has going on in both their Mind meaning space, and Body Meaning space, and Physical Meaning space situations; In other words they have to access both the rational aspects, as well as the feeling aspects, of another, in order to truly get into an empathic connection; a life habit, of course, for which said individual would have no clue about unless they were patiently nurtured into it. Which, in case you haven't been paying attention, a lack in generational stability, received inside cooperating, self supportive communities, that also provide continuity, as well as general material well being for everyone, would make providing such a human necessary trait all but impossible one would thing. Any more than keeping a good sense of what reason should be within such a deficiency.

I would also suggest that Mother Earth is not where a sense of ecology comes from. And I say that because she does not want to be concerned with remembering anything, even though, of course, she is possible only by the very nature of physical meaning space making structure possible at all to begin with; as chunks of matter lead to chemistry, which leads to bio chemistry, which leads to DNA, and then to the encoded associations of meanings that are able to get so worked up about having sex in the first place. No, to be able to be concerned about the big picture you need to not only have the ability to organize things into grouped relationships, you must also be able to layer those groupings in ever more complex ways, and for that you need very subtle structure. Lots and lots of meaningfully subtle structure.

The bottom line, though, for me is that, as the empathy example suggests, we can see very clearly, why both sides of this metaphorical divide need to be listened to, in every way we can, if one is to be on a path that gives you the best qualities of both elementals, for the best chance for you, and the whole, to flourish, as well as grow; with diversity in structure, and depth in the textured feelings of its meaning, as well as simply more quantity.

And if you think you have better suggestions for the names, or other thoughts about how the two should, or shouldn't for that matter, interact, make a comment here, or maybe you should start your own blog; a blog for a more comprehensive view of what you think would be a better description of their traits, and their interactions. Get a few of those going and I'd be willing to bet we' have some very interesting takes on how the entirety works. Something to think about at least.






Monday, August 21, 2017

An Interesting Duality In The Notion Of "Taking The Big Leap."

In my song "The Three Leaps Of Life" I used to think that, out of the three (the intuitive leap, the leap of faith, and that "final leap", as I used to say it) that the final leap was simply a person making the choice to stop being at all; an interpretation that seemed both logical, and correct of feeling; until now.

Now I have come to realization that I was looking at this last leap idea incorrectly. For you see there can never be any kind of final leap, there are only leaps where you don't know for certain if you, as an identity, will continue processing anymore, in any meaningful way.

Now, that might seem like a small distinction, but it turns out it has a quite significant logical consequence. And to understand that you first have to understand what happens, at least as I understand the process, when one lets go of conscious organization long enough (either meditatively, or chemically, so that there is no filtering; and therefor no reaffirmation of the separation of inner and outer meaning space interaction;  precisely because there is no objectifying by the identity matrix; the very matrix that is your ability to function as a meaning processor, created from the frame of reference of the unique experience association path that formed that matrix), a big part of which we refer to as your inner dialogue, one takes something of a risk. This is something that is called Ego Death. And one of the reasons great meditation required significant training and discipline, quite apart from being able to meditate properly in the first place, challenging though that can be, was that one had to be first given the confidence in self to allow for the leap of faith it takes to let go of one's self at all, in the first place. And it takes a leap of faith because what you are doing is quite simply not existing for a while as an operating, organized meaning matrix I just mentioned a moment ago. That matrix, in a sense, is allowed to float in, a supposed, better infusion of both you and whatever bigger experience one is now floating in, without organizational identity.

Setting aside for the moment consideration of why that combining is a "supposed, better infusion," I think we're better served in our effort to understand "letting go" in this sense by finishing how the process is supposed to work. Eventually, and this is the tricky part, it is assumed that the confident self will have the ever present residual holding power, of its own organization, to allow it to find a way, some how, to re integrate itself with an inclusion of what was fused with, so that you return to you, but in a variable degree of new, for that new way to be you. And in that variable new degree of new you, it is hoped, is a new enough frame of reference with which to see important new connections; so as to create important new ideas.

As you might imagine, then, the risk here is really two fold:

1. Not being a confident self, it panics on approach to this "merging," and in fighting it in panic mode, the new sensory state, half in or half out hardly matters, might create fear born, desperate attempts to create old meaning where it cannot be found now, setting up a mental, experience feedback loop, that simply breaks the person's psyche. And I can tell you honestly folks, having had to talk friends down from bad LSD trips, if you don't "love bomb" them (which, as I recall, was what Ken Kesey, and the merry pranksters, resorted to when they'd encountered a bad trip during one of their LSD happenings as explained in "The Electric Kool Aid Test", by Tom Wolfe) or "calm bomb" them or "chill bomb" them, or whatever other groove cliche you might want to use, to not exactly explain it right; if you don't do that whatever bomb it takes, to break up the bad looping, they will likely have a psychotic break.

2. Though confident enough to not panic on entry, the self still finds itself caught up short by whatever magical process is involved to allow one, currently idling, identity matrix to merge, in what the SQL language would be called either a  "UNION ALL," or a "UNION UNIQUE" command. Of course, what the magic does with these, if anything, since it is conjecture, I have no idea (yet), but I will tell you this. I have been to idling as a meaning processor, and I have come back. And the results can be everything from only nice, to amazing, to terrifying.

I have to say at the beginning for me, it never really occurred to me to fear letting go, I just did it because it was, as in posts before have indicated, something that just clicked. Somehow, ahead of time, I had already built the discipline of self (whatever exact qualities that requires because I don't think I could list very many), and I already felt, deep down, that I would come back, somehow. As I did, and as I have always done since. And to this day I still can't tell you where exactly I go, or how I come back, but I do.

The thing is, you do this enough, you come to a point where having it happen only via great meditative effort is no longer required. You can, in fact, slip in out, quite at every little whim, and nuance, all around you, because everything around you now can trigger connections; and this can easily go too far if you're not careful. Because eventually the merging process itself can simply take over as a quite unhealthy constant state of constant rebirth. Intoxicating in one sense, but quite without the memory to hold anything long enough for loving, and thoughtful, structure to continue, in another. And for reasons and feelings I'm still not sure of yet, the entirety really needs realities to try and do just that; keeping loving, and thoughtful structure continuing (just as it wants you to let go from time to time, but also to come back and still be significantly you), and growing. Because somehow, we are going to find larger frames of reference with which to grow into.

In any case, though, in this kind of letting go and falling away, even though there is risk, there is still a good chance of "you" coming back; it just might not be exactly the same you as before. In contemplating death, the situation is much the same. The identity matrix that is the self goes away. And in this instance, of course, the going away is certainly of a fundamentally different sort of causality; as in complete bio chemical, and electrical, systems failure. The physical meaning system that supports it stops functioning because of either a specific disease pathology, or accumulated replication errors in the translation of kernel functionality from one complete cell state, to the existence of an original, and a new copy. That being said, however, does not change the fact the process of falling away into a new perceptual environment, even if it is objectively brief, is still going to be one where there is a, what I think must be, a great similarity with the subjective experience of ego death meditation; increasingly not filtered, though, also possibly limited as the body functions less than normal, as the self falls away with the dimming, immense physical space stimuli that is normally always there for us to be immersed in.

The obvious expectation here, of course, and for good reason, is that the self is absolutely not coming back. But here's the thing. In that last mingling. In that last (and of course last only from the perspective of this identity matrix), infusion who's to say what happens as a rebirth integration into something that is something else, but is also a big part of you. Just because you don't get to continue being you from your current perspective doesn't mean that a good portion of you isn't now beginning a new continuation of identity; and who knows what it might remember of the you here. And that, of course is on top of the people here who will have you in them in ways that neither party will ever fully understand.

And now I can refer back to the cliche about death that I have the feeling most people are probably sick to death of by now and that is the one that Keanu Reeves spoke as the main, alien cloned human, character in the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still." Trying to comfort the young boy, stepchild, of the main female character, whose father died as a soldier, he says: "Nothing ever really dies, it just transforms." Indicating, of course, that some fool, little bit of essence, or spirit, carries forward. And maybe a little is all it takes after all, but, I'm still here to tell you that it is probably a lot more than that, and then some to boot.

You do continue. It's just, I think, altered enough that it has to associate in its own new reality; creating yet another new branching of similar such paths, of such vastly complex, experience association. And you, as an identity, never stop, I think. Never completely anyway. You may never really have started anywhere either for that matter, for the beginning, and the continuation, all started at the same time, in that odd, cause and effect, duality that things of a "cosmos" sort of orientation sort of just aggregate to. Which is just more stuff to "bake your noodle" as the Oracle used to say; whether Neo, or Morpheus, were around or not. Of course she was only trying to provide contrast too. Not to tell you what would be but to give you a way of looking at things that might allow you to find your own best choices. Which I always thought was pretty cool for an oracle.

Anyways... That's the bottom line as far as I can see now. You do continue. It just depends on how you look at it, as always.

The question then becomes should everybody try this falling away to a release of ego, and the hoped for return?  And the answer is an unequivocal Absolutely Not! This is just too risky (just in case having already talked about psychotic breaks wasn't enough to make that clear), despite what possible reward might be attainable. And even if it did work you really have to understand that the revised you might not be anything you were either hoping for, or expected. And because of that your life from that moment forward could never be the same at all; putting you on a new life path the former you would have never have wanted, or even contemplated. I know because that's what happened to me. And let me just say that, no matter what few upsides there may be here, and however amazing a particular one might be, the downsides are many; the most prominent one perhaps being the loneliness inherent in now becoming the only person who can see things a certain way. A way that might not be any better than the old way, and in fact, might actually be worse in the long run. And even if it is better you may never be able to get anybody to understand it, let alone want to try it.

My hope is that, in the decriminalization of psychoactive drugs, our society will open itself to the careful investigation of the beneficial properties these drugs might provide; and perhaps as a part of that we can also investigate the intricacies of letting go of the ego. There have already been new reports that these drugs may have surprising benefits in a variety of therapeutic settings. We really need to look into this a lot deeper.







Friday, August 18, 2017

The Necessary Three Confessions From The Meaning Spaces Of Any Reality

It's not that I cannot see,
but that I look
with the wrong eyes.

It's not that I cannot feel,
but that I cannot see feeling
as another kind of knowing

It's not that I cannot think,
but that I feel so little
for thinking.



[Post Note: those meaning spaces referred to in the title, in case you were wondering, are:

1. Physical meaning space (where matter makes meaningful connections into more complex matter) because the starting frame of reference for being able to associate in the first place (the numbers associated with the Anthropic Principle; perhaps at least in the case of our type of meaning processor in any case).

2. Mind meaning space (where objectified language guides identity, and point of view, to rationality through meaningful thought connections as observations create facts, for which patterns emerge to create ideas, with further meaningful thought connections).

3. Body meaning space where associations are made between internal chemical, and lower brain imperatives, with the great exterior, body complex states of skin, and muscle, and bone, as well as the usual external senses, across far more stimuli than than the conscious mind can contain in an ordinary mind space, or physical space, objectification.




Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Do We Ever Really Forget Anything?

[ Pre post note: the trailer for the movie "Rememory" came out after I started writing this. As such the particulars of how they treat really technically advanced memory manipulation are not addressed here. Those may, or may not be relevant at all to this discussion, but even if they would have been very much so, this piece was pretty much a done deal already so I wanted to post it as is. If I see something pertinent after I see the movie I'll make a new post as needed]

Consideration of this notion has been part of Sci Fi, off and on, for a while now. That somehow, within the deepest structure, of structured bio electric memory, if one could get at it, all the details of every moment, would be there. And maybe someday, in the distant future of mindset, and instrumentality, we might actually achieve that; which is not to say we would necessarily want to of course, but it's still nice to have ideals, and be judicious in how we prioritize them, as well (just sayin).

When you start to speculate on speculation, however, you still need to take at least some pause in the process; especially as it relates to any statement you might want to make, and for which you want to attach reasonable meaning to. And as I do, it is incumbent upon me to stipulate automatically, in such circumstances, that what might ultimately be available is irrelevant; at least in the mid term of human planning. What we can say, however, is that there will be increasing degrees to which we will, in one practical sense or another, be able to incorporate the creation of much deeper connections into all aspects of being, and becoming (of knowing and building, but still respecting, and being a part of, interconnected life), to access not only more of memory, but of what knowing itself is, and all of the new channels that will be available, to put into mixes that feel right to you, to become aware of patterns that will certainly, and quickly, escape my ability to articulate properly, though I do think I can at least feel some of them (as they appear on a distant new horizon now, especially if we make some very important choices, and very quickly).

In any case, though, getting back to memory, I can't help but wonder upon my own subjective experience; the things I seem to have access to, at the oddest of times, without any clear recollection of ever having learned it in the first place. Amazing bits of vocabulary that I have not practiced the knowing of, though certainly, in some tomb somewhere, if only in a casual glance, at a random page, in some random book store (I used to sell my blood to buy books from the downtown Seattle used bookstores, for a time quite a while back), could have put that word, somehow, into my mind. But there have also been dreams of people, places, and situations, I have had no prior experience of; at least, of course, that I can recall; and that's where this gets even more odd.

Once, when I was in the 5th or 6th grade, at Sunnydale School in Burien, during a lunch recess, as I recall, in the middle with playing with some other boys in an activity I don't recall, I was interrupted by a shout behind me when another boy behind me was about to rush up and give me a big, surprise push.

There was nothing in the least antagonistic about this sudden, wild hair up another boy's butt, that prompted him to give into doing some mischief. Not in the least, and yet, in the moment of turning around and seeing this boy rapidly approach, something automatic clicked into place; something that took control over what my body did next. And what that "next" was was a perfect execution of a judo body toss, over one's body, using the opponent's own momentum against them, grabbing the boy by the front of his shirt, bringing my feet up to his stomach, just as I began falling back to the ground. And that poor kid went sailing over to fall quite abruptly on his back; knocking the air out him of course, scaring the bejesus not only out of him, but the rest of my friends as well.

I hasten to add here that one of the reasons this is still so clear to me is precisely because I felt really bad about hurting this boy. He was, in actual fact, a friend, and in any normal circumstance I would not have had any desire to cause him any harm. But that hurt him and I could clearly see that it did and I was as shocked with myself as the other boys were at me.

Not only did I not know how I did what I did, I did not know how whatever took control, took control; and then by implication, what the hell is taking control of me?

In later reflection, of course, it would come seem quite reasonable that this was just a fluke for a kid who'd seen a judo demonstration on TV once or twice, and somehow, because it's supposed to be a fluke, that memory just popped out. Maybe I have some small genetic disposition to super sensitive fight or flight response, and the fluke was getting such a complete muscle memory recall of it at that moment. It would also be reasonable to expect that I might not actually recall the experience of seeing any sort of the TV show in question, because why should I when I already know I have a very quirky memory to begin with.

And so this is where I need to explain that, at the oddes times, the simplest things I have actually learned (names, terms, spellings, specific facts, etc ad nauseum), simply vanish; usually for some random variation of time that would still fall within the range of "briefly." It would be gone for that random brief moment, and then it would return. And this has been the case for most of my life. A kind of running, almost cause for worrying about Alzheimer's (it was just a worry before that term came along), but never quite reaching that threshold.

Be that as it may, though here is what I want to propose to you: If everything is semipermeable, and some memories go down into deep brain structure, where you might even swear to have completely forgotten, what is possible of unexpected interaction between your deep structure, and, if, like me, you consider yourself a multipath (someone who has regular, unconscious, and/or meditative, interaction with random aspects of an infinite number of variations with yourself). What might get swapped in and out, kind of like a RNA transfer, DNA process gone ary because of some fantastic phase shifts (think of Geordy of the Enterprise trying to adjust the phase discriminators so that a past event could be seen) just when one chunk of info is getting placed in the same corresponding sockets in both realities. It may be only out there as a concept (and a possible imagining, in my case), but for my own part, I am telling you it feels very real.

And let me just also emphasize that the personal examples given so far are by no means the limit of what I have experienced myself. I could go into, say, the ability I developed at about the age 13 or 14, after reading only a few books on the subject, of being a very adept hypnotist, as my sisters, and brother will attest to, if you ever care to ask them. And I don't mean just good at it, I mean very good at it; to the point where I could do post hypnotic suggestions to pretty much everybody we knew, and was willing to let me try -- which several did only by spur of their own scepticism for such a thing from someone so young. And I always had this feeling that I was good at it not because I was good at reading, and interpreting instructions, but because it felt like I was reading a description of a process I was already quite familiar with (though not remembered until reading the books); a process the subtle art of which; by voice modulation, demeanor, and other things they may not have words for, was already a complete muscle-mind memory; something for which I could not possibly have acquired by any direct means. I could go into other such examples as well, as I was saying, but I'll leave it at that for now.

This is where I might also reiterate my contention, in other posts, that the notion of multi path and savant may be related, but rather than do that again here I'd rather draw on another interesting phenomena that people have been claiming to have experienced, and that is this theory, that's been percolating around the web for a while now, with varying levels of interest, that reality, within the past few decades, has been altered; changed somehow from one timeline, to another, leaving us mostly oblivious, save for a few who sense definite inconsistencies.

Now I know this is going to open me up to the cliches of what mental states this might suggest probability wise (and lord knows there's plenty enough going on to make people crazy, and distracted reality wise), I and understand the skepticism that would have to result from that. It is certainly justified. Still, we ought not be too hasty in dismissing any and all such accounts simply because they are not very probable. Restating the venerable Mr. Murphy, if something can happen, it will, eventually.

In any case, few though they may be now, and subjective, they might still be worth considering; especially if one takes a different viewpoint on what these perceived "reality variations" might actually be. In fact, what if what is going on here is not necessarily a movement of the realities themselves, but more a movement of the memories created from different realities. What if what people see as inconsistent is a new memory, made by another version of the claimant. One out of cinc with the claimant's former memory timeline? Something still real as a memory, because it did come from a very similar vector of association, just not the right memory from the right reality.

Then again, perhaps a very good deal more improbable than our conjecture here, but still not impossible, is the notion that, every, very rarely so often, maybe chunks of reality do swap over; some sort of super gestalt, entanglement switcheroo, that really puts some heavy duty traction to words like "fluke" and "anomaly." After all, maybe Rod Serling was Rod Serling, and had the contrast capability he did, for a good deal more than either he, or we, ever cared to admit. The same for H. P. Lovecraft.

It makes you wonder about a lot of things that come and go from what we try to remember; even when we go to great pains to try and record things in one form of historic record or another. But this was bound to become noticed; whether by natural mental causes or not. This is so because this is what happens when you come to realize just how complex things can become when it is a trifecta of meaning spaces that we operate in: Physical Space, Meaning Space for the mind, and Meaning Space for the body; which I would like to tentatively define now as the pure feeling of un objectified interaction with the other two; singularly, and in combination. All of which, I hasten to add, is the real substance of what makes "subjective" a real noodle bender now. Precisely because, at the very least, if all of it is a working whole, than can any one part of it be any less real than the other?

Or maybe it's only that some parts may need greater weights, at any given time, than the others, and that this must be decided upon by a dynamically adjustable decision process to be correctly defined at some, hopefully, sooner rather than later, currently unspecified, moment. And maybe that decision process is what is really being expressed in trying to live the tension of something you have already defined as competing necessities; two basics usually that must be kept in balance. Which is, then, obviously, why I have Mind on the one side, and The Elemental Embrace on the other.

It's all connected. That's the beauty of it, but that's also the problem with it. If everything matters how can one possibly cope. You might as well say nothing matters. But then, that's no good either. We got this far didn't we? Despite the "anything might have come from this 'form out of chaos' " process we call a reality, we ended up coming to a point where it is now possible to have a choice. A chaos to form process ended up creating an entity that not only understood what "choice" was in the first place, but had created amazing meaning systems, and meaning into form systems, and the really incredible ability to contemplate future outcomes from a host of possible new choice paths. And I sincerely think that we can do the "think-feel" balance if we both work to further understand it, as well as accept that we have to live differently, adapting ourselves to this new view of everything, if we're to have any chance to continue.

My outline of where to start is exactly that. An outline. And a place to start. Now we must talk about it more, as a nation. Like adults. Basically folks what we have now is a lot of practical that needs to be balanced with what might seem like a lot of impractical, but is just as important anyway. And we all need to be involved in talking about it. Making it happen. And keeping it going. That's the bottom line and that's why you have to have a philosophy that must be connected to a movement for social change.

It is up to all of you now to make it happen.



Monday, August 14, 2017

Now We Can Make Flying, Drone, Aircraft Carriers

All we have to do is develop my lighter than air, dirigible blimp trains.

The military could use them. Our economy could use them. The rest of the world's relief agencies could use them. That is what you definitely call a three-fer; which is, of course even better than a "two-fer." Three benefits for the price of one, true, public works project. You know, where it's no one particular individual's, or group's, profit that's involved, just the good of the nation, as well as the rest of the world, that really matters.

Man, what a precedent that might set.

The Pentagon wants to make flying aircraft carriers for drones







To Anyone Who Gains Meaningful Attention

How do you proceed
reflecting
when you have to
proceed reflecting
on the others
reflecting upon you.
What will you
do to keep you
from being
any part of the main
discussion.
And that's the you
of course
who just loves
discerning the patterns,
quietly outside
your own interactions.
The you that might need
protecting.

In any case,
conceiving an artful dodge,
to at least stay
partially out of the way.
Would they
believe it
any way
you might lay
the sincerity on?

Then be pretentious enough
to advise:
Meditate on the question:
How does one strive
For wisdom
If Wisdom Recognizes
itself,
is that so wise?





Saturday, August 12, 2017

The Biggest Cliches Of Star Wars...

...Or: Why Does Information Coded and Retrieved One Way Automatically Have More "Truth" Of A Physical Interaction, Than Another?

OK. Before I go any further, let me just emphasize that the cliche part, in the post title, represents my estimation of what has been the majority opinion of the reaction, over the years, to the things that Star Wars might have in it that people have come to see, or claim to see, as "cliches." And of course, in this, I am talking about the line: "Luke... Trust your feelings... Use the force..."

Now, one might argue that there are really two cliches here. The first is this thing about your "feelings" knowing something real about life and death situations. And the second being the assumed absurdity that, as Hon himself called it once, "magical force" can be used to effect reality in any useful way. And obviously there would be some good ground to argue from for that stand. I'd like to think, though, that even being possible separate cliches, to be considered on their own merits, one might find more value in looking at them in an interdependent, combined relationship. And I'm going to do that because, in so doing, I think you can argue, just as persuasively, that in combination, and seen from the right point of view, they are in fact, not cliches at all, but valid aspects of the interaction between meaning space and physical space.

First let us suggest that your "feelings" as we refer to them might actually be capable of encoding their own form of very real information. It is most certainly not "objectified" information as we are usually now so used to, but rather other kinds of analogue signals collection, held onto, and retrieved in a completely different way.

Secondly, let us suggest that the "force" that this movie universe tosses around so much isn't so much bolts of ethereal lightening that one can either zap people with, mess their minds up with -- if they're stupid enough for suggestion -- , or move shit around with; even as it also is there to tell you things; but that it is more to suggest that it is connection itself that this "force" actually refers to. And as connection itself, how could it also not be an indispensible part of what your are able to "feel" in the first place.

Going back to the first suggestion then, another description for making decisions based on feelings might go like this: un objectified muscle nerve memory; information collected by the repetition of experience association, without conscious filtering, or specific awareness.

These subtle aspects of the body, and the whole of the nerve brain system, even though they are not also connected to a specific term, or phrase, in meaning space, are there for the consciousness to make use of, if that consciousness is attuned to reacting when combinations of such subtleties are re resonated in new interactions with the physical world. Typically, especially in the world of combat, this is referred to as muscle memory. What we're talking about when acquiring this type of "memory" is deep, focused involvement in an interaction, not waiting, necessarily, for descriptive narrative to catch up with "raw data" analogue associations that involve the entire body's ability to "perceive" some aspect of all of the different energies impacting on it. Which is precisely why soldiers, and pilots, and numerous first responders, understand this type of information so well.

Ok. So we can encode, hold, and retrieve beyond the ordinary notions of meaning space, but what then does that suggest for any further ramifications concerning "connection?"

What it should suggest, in my view, is that there may also be a great deal more that is possible to receive from "connection" than immediate, everyday, physical interaction might lull you into assuming otherwise. As I have already suggested in other posts, everything is semi permeable. Information packets, in amazing formats, cross seemingly impossible boundaries, because of it. And not all of it is random noise. And remember, this has to be, within my philosophical framework, because connection, structure, and meaning are fundamental for infinite potential to be able to set forth these brilliant branchings, of reality ray tracing vectors in the first place; the vectors to search out every possible associative path of existence creation, to see what points of original reference make the most stable, and meaning filled, such eternities. Well... eternities at least from our perspective anyway.

So maybe we should be saying "May the Connection" be with you instead of "The Force." But as far as "trust your feelings" goes, however, we must continue to encourage. We must do this, however, with the same sense of balance that we must apply to the use of reason. Both of these aspects of every reality, and of the entirety itself, are of equal importance. Living the tension between that balance is a big part of the ongoing challenge that is existence. The only sensible way I have come up with to describe it is by calling it, thoughtful, loving structure; making it, living it, and expanding it. Which might also tend towards cliche for a lot of people, but I'm sure life will go on.

And then, if one were an especially optimistic, and hopeful person, one might want to suggest a further possibility. The possibility that we might be the very meaning processors who can find a way to work the balance of thoughtful, loving structure out into the very sustaining weave of their reality's substance; growing ways of being beyond mere singular references of space and time; actually growing our perceptual frames of reference to ever greater planes of organizational possibility. Inhabiting forms, in some inconceivable way now, that span constructs involving multiple realities at a higher level of ongoing now. Who knows when not even the sky is the limit.

But there I am again demonstrating just how much of a dreamer I really am. And it doesn't take much now to get me going, piling possibilities on top of possibilities. All too plainly, if we don't mobilize ourselves, just as if we were about to start a World War 2 kind of national effort (without calling it another "War On..." thing, one can only hope), soon, the world's not going to have much use for dreamers for what will likely be a very long time to come. Perhaps not much use for this version of sentient either if we're not careful. In any case, though, the choice is pretty simply: Are we going to make continuing to fantasize living in dystopian futures a part of our march towards self filling prophecy, or are we going to try and describe ourselves into a better reality all together? The choice is ours for the taking you know. We only need believe we can take it.





Friday, August 11, 2017

A Further Refinement Of An Older Statement

Just as matter is mostly space that we cannot see, space is mostly matter we cannot see. This is because, in both instances, we have the simultaneous existence of other realities going on in the same unbounded, singularity of infinite potential the entirety must be by definition (basically another way of saying that which cannot be further encompassed by anything else). And it doesn't matter which reality vector of experience association you are in, information and effect percolate back and forth because of the commonality of the encompassing system. All to make connection, differential, flow, structuralization, occur, making meaning that metaphorical carrier wave between all of it, so that infinite potential can realize some small part of itself, in whatever passes for a timeless now there.







Thursday, August 10, 2017

This Is The Kind Of Technological Change That Is Frightening, And Exciting, At The Same Time

On the one hand, being able to print things in ever more completeness, ever more quickly and efficiently (assuming you had the proper flow of source materials and energy), might give a world without Capitalism the ability to start achieving entirely within the bounds of finding the will, coordinating with others, and using the basic resources you already have over and over again; even as, in that coordination with others, you step up to the larger frame of reference that is our solar system, and the galaxy it travels in.

The ultimate "more" that we will need as a species (especially one that needs to build, and explore, and to continually know more) is of course, out there in that larger frame of reference. And this sort of technology could really help that.

On the other hand, what this could do for warfare really scares the piss out of me. You only need read the books of Daniel Suarez (most especially "Kill Decision") to see some really scary speculation on where easy to make kill bots, using new ant behavioral algorithms as controlling software, could put warfighting into another kind of reality, all its own. One where a lot of what is conventional doctrine, as well as big, expensive hardware, now would become absurd overnight.

And of course it doesn't help at all that, because a lot of money stands to be made, this technology will be pushed out just as fast as it can be. To be used in as many applications as it can be. Because that's all part of making money. Unfortunately, it is when the bill for the cleanup comes due that we realize that, perhaps, some sober reflection should have been instigated first? Unless there's either no one left who can afford to pay for the cleanup, or there's simply no one left at all.

THE US NAVY 3D PRINTED A CONCEPT SUBMERSIBLE IN FOUR WEEKS || WARTHOG 2017







Wednesday, August 9, 2017

The Credo Of Epic Empathy, Or What True Concern Should Really Drive For

I have what I like to think
of as the most heavy duty,
all -- tread to dread for -- terrain,
empathy explorer you have ever seen,
or imagined.
I go where angels fear
to put rubber to the load,
cause there ain't no road.
And no easy lines to find an escape from,
or to talk back a better meaning with;
unless you've already lined them
along with you. Because down in there,
looking back through your vision,
of their eyes,
and what has warred upon their soul,
you might just get to know
too much of their defective meanings,
and the hell they've thus described
themselves into. Don't want
to have a breakdown there I can tell you.
And if you do then the winch
you want to wind back from
better be wrapped good and tight
with the lines that have always held you together.

The risk is great but the reward can be too.
For in that deep excursion can you
find the lines of contrast that might
help these people see
better meanings for themselves.
And you can lay those on them
without any judgement,
or specific conceit
of fixing them. Just
something more to inform
a choice that must always be
theirs to deal with.




Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Here Is A dream That I Have About Space Exploration

I have criticized the physics community recently for being so focused now (at least as it relates to total science spending, either by community, or not) on directed action upon a system as an investigation tool, as opposed to the more traditional careful, unobtrusive observation that science at least tried to start on. The bottom line point in that argument being that perhaps there is a point of "going too far" when one impinges on a system with larger mass and energy relationships than whatever particle of the full electromagnetic spectrum one might want to use (whereas using lasers, radar. x-rays, or electron microscopes, even to the point of destruction, is one thing, but blasting protons into nuclei, and at increasing levels of energy, is another).

There was also the suggestion that, purely on a philosophical level, that maybe the "banging away at" approach, even though it may well be giving us useful data, is just wrong headed to begin with. That, if you wanted to truly live a life that emphasized a balanced approach to thoughtful loving structure, the more overly intrusive you are into what you are trying to understand, the more difficulty you are going to have in achieving it. At least in my opinion of course.

In any case, though, I mention that criticism because space holds the key to doing observational science like it's never ever been done before, even as the labors instituted to begin this expression also work to give us a better meaning for what work is. And this is so because setting up the kind of automation infrastructure in space that I want to set up will give eventually give us constructive capability that you won't need to go to a movie to see, or, more importantly, be a part of now. And in my dream of space exploration one of the first thing's we might want to think about doing is building another kind of mass driver.

Normally, when you think of mass drivers you think of a rail of some length, a lot of magnets, and a lot of power. And I certainly want to make use of that type of driver, but I also want to create one that changes the idea of using circular accelerators only for accelerating subatomic particles.

There may well be some debate develop here on what is the most efficient approach to using mass driver technology; especially as it relates to the dichotomy of whether one chooses to simply build either immensely long, linear accelerators, or circular accelerators of immense diameter. And this will likely be a lively debate as there pluses and minuses for both approaches. I like the circular approach for too many reasons to waste time going into here in any detail. I guess it just boils down to the mix of tradeoffs there just feels better, but more importantly, I just love the idea of being able to continue using accelerators, but in a way that supports, and reaffirms the commitment to, careful, in depth observation; and all the while keeping a healthy dash of humility for just how complex it all is.

Be that as it may, the thing with circular accelerators is that you can change velocity over selectable amounts of time without having having to physically be slapping more chunks of accelerator rail at the exit point before the launch capsule gets there. No, here you only keep it circling around longer. Which unfortunately, and quickly, brings up a big part of why circular accelerators offer lots of extra engineering problems.

Even if your launch object was only a few tons at the beginning of acceleration, it wouldn't take long at all for it to have bestowed upon it a great deal of new relativistic mass; mass that does not want to do anything but go straight ahead. Trying to change that vector, even if it's quite tiny at any given moment, becomes ever more resisted. Which translates, of course, to force against the very acceleration rail doing the, ostensibly, linear acceleration.

The thing is here, I think we are going to find a way to make a new molecular stack of materials that will allow for a kind of electromagnetically reinforced cable. I don't know exactly what that stack would consist of (I am a systems guy, I can't allow myself to get too buried into the details), but I do know that a clever way to arrange things as ever more interlocking electro magnets, perhaps augmented in some way, by the very tensional strain of the load, via piezoelectric effects, ought to exist. Like I said, I don't know what the exact mix will be, but I do feel certain it is there. We haven't found it yet because no one has had a meaningful enough incentive in place to spur this particular line of inquiry yet in materials science (at least with the, admittedly limited, tabs that I keep on that sector).

This would be a cable that would give us a tremendous new load bearing capability, expressed almost exclusively in relation to how much power we can put through the cable. More power, more strength (with the heat dissipation probably being the biggest headache to deal with). And again, it is my belief that such cabling will allow us to have circular accelerators; even at the early stages of cable development, that will allow us to accelerate probes to far greater velocities than any chemical, or electrified particle as reaction mass, will ever be able to do.

However we do the acceleration, though, here's the important thing to remember in what we want to set up to accomplish. And that is this: we need to create the most effort effective probe launch grid, which you can think of as an array of vector spokes going out, in all directions, from the perceptive bowel that is our solar system, that we can. The more of these vectors, of course, to a certain extent at least, the better, but practicality will certainly have to weigh in at some point.

The idea would be to then have one, or more, of these truly immense rings (and I would think on the order of at least tens of thousands of kilometers in diameter) set up so that each could accelerate two probes simultaneously, only circulating in opposite directions to each other. You then just sit back, as your robot assemblers continue adding solar collectors, to the huge surface area, of the sunward side of the rings, and wait till you get yourself up to whatever the engineering limit of the structure would allow. As the power generation increases, the exit speeds from our system would increase. And I think that will ultimately be significant fractions of the speed of light, but that really, isn't the most important part of this at all; even if it is helpful.

The important part is what it could mean to our understanding of the cosmos around us if we could have an ongoing, ever more far reaching, set fabric of new lines of perception; perceptive vectors that not only tell us things along that specific vector, but also tell us things by the triangulation of intersecting, instrument scan lines, because we would then have long sequences of probes, along each vector, looking in each direction around them, and having their scan cross items of interest, but from continuously different vantage points over time, across widening distances between the launch vectors as they continue out into the rest of our galaxy. And of course it also doesn't hurt that each subsequent probe could be a telemetry relay point for whatever number of probes preceded it.

And by starting there, as well as observing our sun much more comprehensively, we will find all of the naturally occurring, energetic particle accelerators we are likely to need for a considerable time to come. And from those we can see what happens, at the smallest scales clever engineering can devise, when these occur without the onus of our direct initiation. A very small thing as a distinction I know, but still. Would it hurt the advance of physics that much to err on the side of caution here?

I am also wondering here if maybe such circular accelerators might also give us an instrument with which to investigate relativistic mass itself. Assuming, of course, that our electromagnetic cable might be as upwardly scalable as I hope it is, and we can get start getting very large equivalent masses accumulated from these rings, might we then begin to experiment with gravitational lensing (just as one example)? Even if it were on a very low gravitational scale? And again, my gut has been telling me that we will, and some amazing things will be discovered. But then, of course, I am a dreamer, and you must take everything I say with that firmly in your mind.

Such are dreams. Lots of potential. Not a lot of focus on the risks, so a lot of the potential becomes automatic black boxes of bad. But still we have them. Still we need them. As risks go with good and bad levels, though, this one isn't so bad.

What do you think?






Saturday, August 5, 2017

The Whole Shabamma Damma

The Whole Shabamma Damma
That's what's going on.
The whole Shabamma Damma
is ready for showing
that big virtual hammer
nobody has a handle on
even as its building up to
what we've all been  really working on.

The Whole Shabamma Damma
That's what's going on.
The whole Shabamma Damma
And how are you knowing?
Flash Dashin Brain Bits
long past the bytes
already bitten,
taking quantum qubits now
with gnashing sharp switches,
too fast
for any already spaced
spacer to channel
a reality in.
And yet we're charged
with living it as cogs
still trying to wheel slowly
on hard lines of
sequenced separation.
Ready to kill
anybody who crosses them.
Lines that have no meaning
any more than an end point
that matters for living. And so
only destruction matters
or gains attention at least.

And so
The Whole Shabamma Damma
That's what's going on.
The whole Shabamma Damma
And it's finally cocked and ready
to bring it all down now.



What If We Could Have A Permanent Presence In The Deep Oceans?

A presence paid for by another, very necessary requirement, that wouldn't have any trouble at all allowing this sort of basic research need piggyback on what that primary requirement was intent on doing. And what if that primary requirement could also be part of a very useful public works project; a project that was itself the beneficiary of being leveraged by a third necessary requirement, that would also be a great public works project?

What I'm talking about here are two of the three critical technologies I want to see us implement in a big way: Producing liquid hydrogen at sea with Yen Tornado turbines, but doing so on my new, hemp composite, modular sea support platforms, and the construction of the world's first underwater, suspended tunnel, to house the mass driver tube that will give us truly mass transit capability to near earth orbit.

The third technology, hybrid dirigible blimp, air trains, would also be key here, for the hydrogen distribution logistics, as well as a better kind of world public transportation utility.

Building the mass driver tubes puts us at the seafloor of deep oceans because going deep with a starting point gives you the most flexibility in order to get the best balance between the angle of launch incline, and the overall amount of tunnel length, as it is extended down range. And you want to be mindful of that, certainly, because the longer you make it the less acceleration stress (in the number of gravities of acceleration) you need to apply on both your cargo, as well as the launch mechanism itself. And as long term usability, and reliability, will be key components here, that's a mindfulness that will be essential.

It is also a matter of happenstance though. I say that because it just so happens that, with launching from at, or near, the equator, you just tend to end up over some pretty deep ocean anyway.

The sequence of how we proceed will be key as well of course. We will need to start with the sea based platform technology, and integrating that with an effective Yen Tornado Turbine design. That means a lot of setup work not only in verifying the long term viability of the hemp composites in a sea environment, but also in setting up the hemp production streams to support a very vigorous production scenario, probably eventually including virtually every ocean the planet has, and as many places producing hemp as we can get. And that will be needed because it won't be just wind turbines we will need to have floating out there. It will also be living habitat, airfields, and logistics staging areas for various distribution needs.

In the meantime, preliminary work in R&D can begin on what kind engineered configuration of mass driver, and recoil absorption technique, would be best suited to this operating environment. As well as the engineering to survive deep ocean pressures with very large diameter facilites tubing, and base support structures.

This is no trivial undertaking at all, and it will necessarily involve forming partnerships with a good portion of our fellow travelers on this fragile little rock we call home, but that too is essential. Because these big projects must also be seen as the means to start building bridges to cooperation in solving common problems; as opposed to simply creating more destructive, confrontational competition for scarce resources, or markets. Which is itself another reason why getting rid of Capitalism is also required.

The thing is here, this will be the start of not only creating challenging, necessary work for our own people, it will be helping the rest of the planet to the same damn thing. And oh, wouldn't that just be a terrible new direction to be going in. You know actually helping others as you help yourself. One trembles before the unbelievable radicalness of the whole concept.

I urge you to give this some serious thought. It would be a win win for the entire world. All it needs now is for you to be talking about it to everyone you can, everywhere you can.

What Secrets Lie At The Bottom Of The Ocean?










Thursday, August 3, 2017

The Fog Of Reality?

In many strategy games you have very large maps. And one of the common components of such games, and maps, is that you don't know what is in an arbitrary map space until you get within some perceptual range of it.

This is taken even further, of course, in that having finally gotten to whatever point, you then get a picture that will become static once you are no longer in perceptual range; that special fog once again asserting itself.

I've been wondering of late about what might be a reality correlation to that fog.

As meaning processors, bringing our meaning space into interaction with physical space, I have to wonder about just how well defined unperceived areas of a reality are until they are a part of that interaction; especially when you couple it with how powerful the energy of belief is.

You also have to wonder about the possible difference there might be in being physically present for direct perceptive, interpretive, interaction, as opposed to getting some of the electromagnetic information left over from those interactions. I present that, of course, as a question because so much of our cosmology is based on very old snapshots of far away map points. And I am left, at least modestly convinced, that getting this information certainly does get back to the point of origin, as some, however faint, indication of being perceived; but more importantly perceived with a meaning system's set of defining assumptions, and whereupon, with which, choices are made, and probabilities realized.

How can it be overstated how profound that is, as a relationship, at a fundamental level. But I don't want to get sidetracked on that; at least not just yet.

In any case though, as already stated, in wondering about interpretive, interactive perception, and consequent action taking, you also have to wonder if, in receiving this information, despite its probable faintness, or its time displacement from a supposed, now many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of light years away, point, might not be able, even retroactively, to assert some of this "interpretive, interactive perception, back on that point.

Obviously, if you start from a specific point of reference (our singularity of expansion), most of the basics of boundary resolution, and boundary interaction (which I think is field theory in an unprofessional nutshell), are going to be set. From which, then, all subsequent interactive, structural possibilities are defined. That being said, though, doesn't necessarily preclude significant wiggle room for a wide range of connection, and transfer, variations within that overall, structural, probability distribution curve.

So here's the real conjecture I want to regale you with: What is truly possible if, very very large numbers of people, working in concert with not only of a shared meaning system, but whose work was the living example of that meaning system, thus demonstrating a concurrent level of shared belief. A belief system that might allow both for the idea that anything is possible, even if it is not very likely. A belief system that held hope, spirit, and empathy as very important things, but also did so with the same regard for logic, tradition, and great objectifications of process, feelings, or thought; struggling always to bridge the tension of that balance.

Then think about how different a reality might be if it were only one of the sides of the above balance that were in place as the dominating perceptual, descriptive, and interactive, modality of our imaginary, probably galaxy spanning, mass of working, believing people.

Just some more stuff to think about. Interesting stuff I hope.

What do you think?










Wednesday, August 2, 2017

To Accelerate, Or Not to Accelerate

Where does directed action towards physical systems, in order to understand how those systems work, become too much; where too much, in this context, might be thought of as unintentional, extra factors, that create what we poorly describe as "bias, or contamination."

I ask this question for two reasons. First, of course, to draw the contrast between directed action itself, as opposed to the more basic approach of careful observation, where one tries to minimize one's own inadvertent influences, so that one captures truly objective interactions that one might then begin to see patterns in, and significant possible relationships; isolating them so that the relationship can then be tested.

The second part, however, pertains to my concern that the physical sciences may be going too far. And they are doing that by directing ever greater, energetic particles into other, bigger particles, in order to extrapolate conclusions of the constituent parts.

Why they do this is, of course, quite logical. And it extends from a natural part of inquiry that's as basic as a geologist knocking a rock apart to see what's inside, to a molecular biologist mucking about with protein folding to better understand what makes some very important, and also very complex, proteins as complex as they are. But even in these examples one can also imagine folks going too far.

For instance: It might be quite illuminating, from the perspective of seeing mantle structure behave, with the most mammoth instrumentation big money could buy, set upon the surface, and drilled deep down as well, in a very wide circumference, around the detonation of (and let's not be stingy here), say, a hydrogen bomb equivalent to the Tsar (something like 50 megatons) weapon the Old Soviet Union fired off decades ago. That this is also quite invasive, and filled with possibilities for untold collateral damage, goes without saying. That being said, however, does it constitute the possibility that, by the mere fact of sentient choice, in creating this interaction event, we have introduced true, informational bias?

Because this interaction is taking place across scales of consideration, that don't go far from the instigation, or observation, the likelihood of any meaningful such bias is probably quite low. But if we change our focus of experimentation, to where we are able to cross scales of consideration to a much greater degree, with the corresponding energies required, what then? And to be clear, by scales of consideration I'm talking about the difference between gravitational reactions, electromagnetic reactions, chemical reactions, nuclear reactions, and down into the increasingly deep sub atomic world, and the various new quanta; tricky bits that continue to show signs that they are but encapsulated interactions of smaller quanta still.

And to also be clear here, much of this may well be important, necessary stepping stones to understanding more. But my fear here is also twofold: One that first stems from the very basic philosophical viewpoint that bashing away at things, to understand them, is just not the right kind of spirit to take into inquiry; that it goes contrary to a respectful humility towards being alive in the first place, and able to have both curiosity, reflection, joy, meaning, as well as the ability to chose. And which, certainly, speaks a great deal about how one views the idea of connecting in a holistic, meaningly integrated way, in the first place.

It also, however, it seems to me, smacks of a complete disregard for complexity at the get go; especially as you give less and less thought of the increasing energies being applied. I can say this because one of the most basic tenets of complexity is that small inputs can have large effects. Such effects amplified by feedback systems, across linkage boundaries, we are still quite ignorant of. Everything is semi permeable after all. If we're blasting away at the very fabric of space and time, it's at least possible that it could end up ringing someone's, or something else's, figurative bell, and not at all in a beautifully resonant way. And the truly odd thing here is that a big part of the difference between natural occurrence creating very energetic interactions, if not all of it, may lay entirely in the fact that sentient choice was involved in making one happen, as opposed to the other.

The problem here is that we just haven't been doing enquiry in general long enough to allow ourselves to get too carried away in the rich results of one vein of consideration, as opposed to another. And It think, precisely because their equations are so elegant, and compelling, and the engineering of those accelerators, ever more clever and awe inspiring, that is precisely what is happening. At some point, it also seems to me, they themselves should be taking a step back and declaring that "we're moving too fast here." Because there are certainly a very large number of things cosmologists can continue doing by the tried and true method of observation. This means, however, that we've also got to get science off of the planet in a much bigger way than we have so far.

Which is simply another reason why I am so adamant for my support of a much more robust space program. If we had the automation infrastructure (I keep forgetting to mention one of the best depictions of what might be possible in the "Red Mars," "Blue Mars," and "Green Mars" series of books by Kim Stanley Robinson), I'd like to see started with Gateway City on the moon, we could begin an era of instrumented observation of the heavens only the science fiction writers have ever gotten close to describing.

In any case, though, it seems to me that a very important philosophical debate has been missing from science for some time now. Part of this comes from the fact that science, for the most part, has been far too silent on the role of Capitalism in corrupting it, as well as its silence on just how obsolete Capitalism is because of scientifically accelerated technological change. But it goes farther than that. That same change has altered the very nature of the instrumentality with which science itself works with. The scope then, of what science should be considering as the "whole" in holistic thinking, must change fundamentally as well. The same change in the boundaries of cause and effect that the confusing world of quantum mechanics describes, must be applied to their own reach of what it is they do when they bash about like that.

They'll take that criticism a good deal more seriously, of course if you start talking about it too.

What do you think?










Tuesday, August 1, 2017

We May Be Waving At Other Realities, And They At Us, Of The Most Essential Things, Without Being Consciously Aware Of It

You can listen now to wonderful Youtube music channels that specialize in what I would tentatively characterize as theatrically inspirational; that is to say music that lies behind the emotional power of not only a lot big movies anymore, but also swirls hugely through a big chunk of gaming (check here, here, here, and here for some examples).

This type of music truly conveys some amazing feelings and it always gets me to wondering. Was that feeling always there, in the specific patterns of notes, and chords? Or do we associate the feelings we have from them now because they've been used so much as supportive, background stimulation, in a host of audio visual, entertainment formats?. I'd like to think that most people would agree with the former conceptualization, and that those who favored the latter would tend to be more likely of the rationalist view of existence. But I recognize that this may be just a result of my own bias.

In any case, though, music proves to me that there are things that affect us that cannot currently be tested, or measured, objectively, precisely because we, and our instrumentality, are so intrinsically linked; if for no other reason than the huge impact of choice itself when it comes to how you design your supposedly objective tests and measures (as in testing light).

The thing is here, holding someone you care about is also a kind of vibration; not only of the immediate body to body contact, but of the emotional-meaning connection of what you have established with that other person. What rubs together then in that kind of linkage? Other than something that's a good deal more than just the anecdotal conjecture of those hoping to hold onto some kind of spirituality?

A good deal more, it seems to me, because other energies exist, and just because we don't understand the full scope of the medium these other energies move as a result of, doesn't deny that existence.

We are but one vector of reality realization (or vector of experience association, as I also like to refer to it). Other vectors exist, going through, and around, us at angles beyond our ken, limited as we are by our dimensional boundaries. Though they then exist in a different enough meaning context to make our direct awareness impossible, that does not mean that some basic aspect of the entirety can't still rub something through. Perhaps meaning itself is a basic carrier wave on a grander scale, and even though we don't know the exact coding of the individual reality modulation patterns, something essential still gets through to us. Something from near copies of us perhaps (as in the parallel universe theory). Or maybe essential feelings from completely different replication structures (biological or otherwise), that are sentient, and that evolved to have feelings in some fundamental way, so that those also filter through, even if it is because of the most quantum crazy of boundary translations, to get back to us.

This is why I can say that everything is as least semi permeable, interactive, and thus capable of information transfer. Cosmologists themselves suggest that even black holes may be using some kind of wormhole channeling in order to leak information back from something that supposedly nothing can escape from; else why else would they dissipate over time.

We are then, connected, in a sense, to everything, even if it is vastly indirect. And in my view, one need only meditate regularly, without the filtering inner dialogue of words, to become more sensitive to this connection. You do that and perhaps even things that seem greatly separated in our own reality will resonate something of importance to you. And provide connection where you thought there could be nothing at all to link with.

Meaning and connection. Mind, with the necessary need of objectification and structure , and the continuous, creative destruction of letting go of old meanings to create new ones, trying to work an always ongoing balance. That is my view of the cosmos.

What do you think?