On the one hand, of course, anybody who is dedicated to pushing the envelope, and always trying to find where "too far" is, without actually taking up residence there, is bound to end up "out of their depth," in one fashion or another.
Isn't it interesting how this can apply to a good deal more than just individuals though; taking a philosophy too far perhaps, as opposed to those who would have no philosophy, or morality, other than personal gain, and aggrandizement. Especially now.
I do feel, however, that, before I can criticize others, I should at least come clean on my own shortcomings here, for which, of course, there are at least a few, and none more prominent than my attempt to address a grand philosophical debate; something I can assure you that was not my intention when I started out on just trying to analyze Capitalism, and come up with a better alternative.
So I actually have little problem in admitting that I am out of my depth in this regard.
It gets more complicated for me, however, because of the unfortunate fact that I am something of a savant; and even there, a very, very odd savant indeed (I was an expert hypnotist at the age of 14, after reading only two books on the subject. Then there's always been a particular affinity for musical instruments, especially the piano; where I can pick up complicated fingering patterns, never practiced before, play them quite quite well for a short while, and then not remember them at all -- of which I have recorded music to prove. And then there's been the affinity for solving complex coding problems nobody else was able to do -- at least in the time frames left, because I was never the first guy brought in to do, whatever form of impossible, that had suddenly cropped up; just to name a few examples).
Because of this, most of what has come to me, on the philosophy side of things, in particular, has come from something other than just rational deduction, and reasoning. I refer to it as "bit streams, by other means," because it is a real thing that is beyond mind meaning space objectivity.
The idea, in fact, that this would occur through thinking about the nervous system, in the rest of our viscera, as a meaning receptor space of its own, capable of receiving such things (much as if we had our own reprogrammable, neural net), with complex codics of its own, came to me, like a ton of bricks, out of the blue, after a meditation session, back in late 2016.
Presently, I am at something of an impasse at the moment in this arena. Both because other things have taken greater priority, but also because the savant reception has been particular spotty lately. Something that happens as a semi regular event to be sure, though possibly more acute lately because I am dealing with some serious health issues right now. The upshot being that months can go by, or even years, before something significantly new, and particular complete, comes along again.
This post is meant to catch you up on a few things that I have been stuck on now, and have had little further input on, for a while now.
Most of what you are going to see here is stuff that has been in draft form for months. It is comprised of just the impressions I've been getting, and the best I've been able to articulate them; interpreting body meaning space being the crazy, wonderful, terrifying, and irresistibly attractive, all at the same time thing that it is. And do also keep in mind that these were. literally, impressions given at a particular moment in time.
They are in order of the most recent first.
A feeling received about ascension:(just received the weekend of the 18th and 19th of Jan.)
When you talk about the idea of ascension, do you not have to also talk about how this can't happen unless some kind of figurative majority, of the multi path that is each of us, is fully integrated with, and on board with the idea, at the get go, or else it's just not going to happen?
And why wouldn't this be the case. How could only one of us make this great leap outside of our particular reality, to form a new objecting layer?
To happen, how could it have at hand the belief power, such a thing would seem to require, in order to use the power of suggestion on all three meaning spaces, for even one reality, to see it realized; not to mention so many others of them, across a nearly infinite range of our, continuously branching, collective of the different variants, that each choice point, in our separate lives, creates a new path for.
I guess what I'm really asking here is if such a thing could happen in isolation of all of the others. And, at first blush, that just doesn't feel quite right.
So then the question becomes, how do you form a, "bit streams, by other means, through the mysteria," kind of cross talk, so to speak, so that some kind of sufficient integration can occur?
So far the only answer I can come up with is that you keep at the meditation that has facilitated things so far and, by trial and error, keep the faith that you are pushing out what you believe, just as much as you stay receptive to new segments from whatever is the most probable source (quite low though that might be, otherwise) . And, of course, for me now, it seems only intuitively straight forward to think that, if any other sentient is possible to link with at all, indirectly, then why wouldn't your own variants be the first, low hanging fruit, from which to make contact with. With what other meaning processor could you be more intimately entangled with?
It seems to me that there are now three ways to consider how meaning (aka mass) effects space: (Draft last touched on 11-05-19)
1: The current thought, of course is that it stretches it in the way of dimpling things in the fabric so as to create the so called gravity well.
2: Another possibility might be that it works like a boat that displaces water; the force of gravity then having to be explained another way.
3: And finally we have my favorite, that the ever on going now is just an infinite overlay of process, all aggregating along a slightly different cosmic angle of aggregating association, and so not in perceivable phase with the perceiving structures of a particular reality.
In other words, does meaning "float," so to speak, in space the same way a boat displaces water, in order to float; or does the process of a point in space simply have more sub processes move in as well, to then start working in interactive conjunction, as a part of the possible, ever ongoing now, that would be realised if a meaning processor were there, in some way, to realize it?
Maybe its another one of those "it's some combination of both," where the relative weights of which should be which, depends on the "special conditionals" I have suggested Cosmologists are going to have to start applying between things like tensor equations, and fast fourier transforms. Conditionals that try to find out how far afield you go, in terms of scales of consideration (whether to include possible entanglement effects at ever lower scales, or higher scales),
Is the ever ongoing "now" merely a way to the refer to the infinite, differently phased, vectors of experience association, that we call realities, each coexpressing their resolutions of choices made, and probabilities realized. And even though it is logical that each reality is its own main source of cause, and effect, that in no way precludes the inevitable leakage that, having the property of "everything is semi permeable," makes inevitable, makes it quite possible that we might be capable of getting complex information structures from streamers very far afield indeed.
Let us not forget that each individual, sentient meaning processor is also their own moving window of now, in terms of the perceptual/behavioral interactions that make up each such individual's process of creating, and expressing, the results of their particular "experience association." And the process of civilization the main way collective agreement is made, more or less, on what that means for the larger sense of what is occurring within the extents of our collective reach.
A Singularity Of What? Expanding How? Cooling How?(Draft last touched 03-12-2019)
Just so choice can be expressed? By ever more informable, and information aware, new interaction, action instigators?
What do you suppose occurs, the very moment the very first sun, in a brand new reality (like ours for instance) when the very first sun fuses a hydrogen atom into another hydrogen to form helium? When no helium has ever existed before.
I ask this question because it seems to me that it begs the question of what "mass" does to spacetime. Does it occupy space, as we assume a chair occupies space in a room (because the chair doesn't make the room any bigger), or does it displace it literally, so as to preclude it from having anything but itself, and its field effects, from doing any interacting with with space inside of its area of field effect, even as it also expands space time, a little more, in the bargain.
This is intriguing to me precise because, in a way, what has to happen here is that two becomes one (only under great, pressing circumstances, certainly), but only as two formally separate things now cooperating meaningfully as one. Two things that once occupied space are taken away and joined to create more inner space, because there is now more inner objects making the new whole, but to what effect on the space that once had two, but for which there is now only a perceived one? And a quite new one to boot?
Is it the energy released by the fusion itself that forces the expansion, or is it the new, supposed displacement, of something that takes up more space, because it has more area of boundary effect, Or is it the increased complexity of the objects that the reality creates? Or perhaps some combination of both?
In the former situation wouldn't one expect there to be very little, if any, net gain in spacetime at all? Certainly not the accelerating expansion we see now, which of course means you have to invent "dark energy," as well as "dark matter."
Would a reality keep expanding if it did not ever create any choice expressors? Expand simply because of the heat dissipating from a supposed infinite mass as it seeks to coalesce from absolute plasma to discrete beginning objects, from which interaction time, and the property sets of the objects in question, which includes the fabric of space itself mind you, then begin to see if more complex interactive objects can then be aggregated. And then, with those, make still more complexity yet, to begin the process anew.
No comments:
Post a Comment