Essence

The Essence of me

 

 

“What is this thing that el Loco Gringo so fiercely defends? It is a tiny vortex that has formed in the temporal river. It exists for the briefest of moments, then is reabsorbed. It strives to balance the forces of the ripples within and the ripples without, maintaining an ethereal form that allows connectedness with the universe and the individual me. It defends me from those who seek to remove this individuation and connectedness. Sometimes doldrums, sometimes rapids. Under the tree limbs and around the rocks. The river has no purpose. It just flows from high ground to low, with no whence or whither, only anon. it obeys the law of the universe, negentropy, time’s arrow. And in the end, this vortex loses form. “The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on” – Omar Khayyam. Throughout it all, el Loco Gringo never lost the wonder. It is the essence of me. In the end, there is only the river. All is as it should be.” – walt

“This is my mind, and mine alone. I like it just as it is. It has guided and protected me through a turbulent life. It has shown me the beauty and the ugliness of the world in all it’s glory and depravity. I have marveled at the richness of the world and the people in it. It has given me a most rewarding journey. It is a fine mind indeed. And I am proud of it, so very proud. It has served me well.” – el Loco Gringo


I have been blessed/cursed with the gift/burden of the “We inside of me” – WALTER





Advertisements

21 Responses to “Essence”

  1. Is the el-loco-gringo dramatist now battling it out with the el-loco-gringo humorist in this polyphrenous we-ness that is otherwise known as walter?

    ‘the moving finger writes and then moves on’, but if it never pulls away from the canvas, then nothing is left behind in the past and everything belongs to the continual becoming. the water running willy-nilly? downhill does its michelangelo trick of uncovering an emergent masterpiece, the rockies, the himalayas. the andes, the fertile valley nesting comfortably in their decolletage, … waterflow, ceaselessly innovating in conjugate spatial relation as it pursues its ‘downhill’ journey, even if it is obsessed all the while with questions of ‘its own identity’ to the point that it can no longer appreciate its conjugate self.

    if you were no longer here, walter, who would i be engaging with? would you negate my experience of engaging with you if you were not here? at what point does engaging with the ideas of others cease to be ‘real’? – at the moment the others are no longer visible? i have never seen you anyhow and brains are one of those generalizations that over-simplifying science superstitiously picks out and portrays as a ‘real local system’, as if it had its own locally originating behaviour. you might be a precocious teenager who is having a lark, pulling everyone’s chain, thanks to computers and the internet. then again, that precocious teenager might be one of the transient personas in the polyphrenous we-ness-of-walter. let’s face it, engaging with others tends to be like engaging with the guy on the PA in the cubicle concealed behind black curtains in the Wizard of Oz, except that the pronouncements on internet websites are like leaving a recorded message on continuous repeat mode.

    its all very well to talk about ‘your fine mind’ and ‘how well it served YOU’ (what’s this past tense business?), but what about ‘how well it serves me/others’? is the service/value your mind provides limited to yourself? if so, there would be no reason to interface your mind with your tongue (except in the case where you wanted to sing praises of yourself to yourself). that is, a word has no meaning unless it is understood by at least two people.

    the vortex is the result of flow it is included in, not the cause of it. the flow persists while flow-features come and go. the flow is invisible, in its essence, but manifests to the observer through flow-features (it is an ignorant observer who limits his understanding to what he can see; i.e. the popular science practitioner is an ignoramus). so, … it seems unwise to invest all of our value in our visible aspect. rivers may form and dry up but their conjugate relations, the sculptures rising up out of the landscape from beneath their fingers, are ongoing and couldn’t make it without their help.

    “… For life and death are one, even as the river and the sea are one. … I existed from all eternity and, behold, I am here; and I shall exist till the end of time, for my being has no end…. Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry, the philosophy which does not laugh and the greatness which does not bow before children. – Khalil Gibran

    ted

  2. ellocogringo Says:

    Actually walt’s the dramatist el Loco Gringo’s the humorist. They don’t battle, I switch back and force as appropriate. polyphrenous, I love it. Had to look it up. I haven’t completely researched the term, but yes, I (and everyone else as far as I can tell) is polyphrenous.

    The past is memories, the future is speculation. There is only now. As to past tense, I am in the end of life decision process. I was recently reminded of the importance of now, when I went to court to pay a traffic ticket and it escalated into a “capital offense”. And I ended up in the hospital. (HOCM) This time I called the Prosecuting Attorney an asshole. I do not ‘work and play well with assholes” eLG’s pretty aggressive when he gets pissed. As to the rest, I like me and am proud of me, and that’s all that matters to me. If you don’t that’s your problem, not mine. I’ve faced the possibility of sudden death my whole life, but that’s the reality of life whether one has HOCM or not. Probably the best a person can do is die with integrity.

    sounds like the school of philosophy that posits “a concept for which there is no word is, in and of itself, insanity”

    Not true, entirely. While the “vortex” is only a shadow of reality, the shadow itself is real. To claim otherwise is metaphysical bullshit. No different than Tao.

    You’re starting to get annoying here.

    walt

    • ellocogringo Says:

      Biphrenous is the more accurate word. Can’t be any other unless you cut a hemisphere out, or have a mutant that grows three lobes.
      This is what you’re talking about I assume. Did you write this? Looks like your style.
      http://www.goodshare.org/dualism.htm
      The observations are correct, but the explanation is way off
      What I am trying to get you to wrap your head around is EVERYTHING discussed in this essay is happening ENTIRELY inside the skull. Innies/outies, local/spacial, yang/yin whatever. (depends on the world view (wetware, inprinting)) EVERYTHING. Spacial forcing is closer to reality but is not reality but only a perception of reality. What you are looking at is not local forcing vs spacial forcing, but two ways of perceiving reality. Your local forcing/spacial forcing is a worldview only, and remains incomplete till you work the logic both ways. The personality management system is the ANN. Should be called a mind management system.
      Later, or not walt

  3. ellocogringo Says:

    In re annoyance

    These discussions are causing my reticulator to kick in. The word chosen to describe this is limited only by worldview, imprinting, education, state of mind, sobriety and personal prejudices. As I look at the world I see everywhere in every field of endeavor this duality of thought, which is non-existent in reality. I could use many words but will use the arbitrary terms the yins and the yangs. But they are all barking up the wrong goose chase, getting their murds wixed. Not unlike watching blind people arguing about whether the sky is checkered or polka dot. Within each group are sub-groups arguing whether the colors are purple or gold. Backing their dogma up with irrefutable math or logic. They’re not even asking the right questions. Yin and yang are not indicative of a bipolar world, or opposing views, or complimentary views or even two sides of the same coin. They are at best (both) on one side of the same coin, the other side being reality. To date no one has understood this any better than Plato with his logos and mythos model. It’s ALL shadows. To ponder whether spacial forcing or local forcing has primacy is absurd. They are merely two logical perspectives of our perception of reality. They are inter-related but not dependent upon each other.

    The answer is yes. Without local forcing (in your sense, not mine) spacial forcing cannot exist. Without spacial forcing local forcing cannot exist. But, in fact, they are BOTH inside the skull.

    “are electrons making space or is space making electrons?” YES!
    “is there a “one mind” or a collective consciousness?” YES!
    “does light act as a particle or a wave?” YES!

    These bipolar views indicate more about how the mind works, than how the universe works.

    But neither bipolar view, in and of itself, is valid, but both are. Only by logically resolving the bipolar nature of the brain will it be possible to determine the nature of reality.

    You’ve gotta work the logic both ways.

    walt

  4. walt,

    Its not just about ‘working the logic both ways’, its about the relative ‘[in]completeness’ of logic (all finite systems of logic are inherently incomplete). Incomplete understanding, when it is used to direct our individual behaviour, leads to ‘incoherence’ since the ‘result’ of our actions is never what we predict it will be (due to our oversimplified view of the world dynamic we are included in; e.g. spraying DDT does kill insects as we predicted but it does much more than what we predicted; i.e. it collects and concentrates to toxic level in the dynamic space we are included in).

    The spatial dynamics in which we are included can orchestrate our behaviour if we let it; i.e. we can ‘take direction’ from the dynamics of space we are situationally included in. The wildgeese do this and it puts them into ‘V’ flying formation. The dynamics of space directs their behaviour and positioning on the basis of resonance, the resonance that can arise between the dynamics of the inhabitants and the dynamics of the habitat. When we move in a fluid, the fluid has its characteristic response to something movement within it, and it will teach us how to move in such a manner as to minimize stirring up turbulence which opposes our passage.

    If we ‘know’ about this, we can use our knowledge to logically direct our behaviour from the inside-outwards. But, in actuality, it is the fluid dynamic we are included in, not ‘logic’, that teaches us how to behave in order to cultivate ‘sweet spots’ in the ‘slip stream’. We know what it ‘feels like’ to co-cultivate sweet-spots in the fluid slip-stream, and it in taking direction from our ‘feelings’ that we(e.g. a group of bikers, or a flock of wildgeese) move into the characteristic ‘V’ formation.

    When we talk about the ‘V’ shape, we are talking in terms of the relative positioning of ‘local material objects’, and ‘what they do’. Logic tells us things in such terms as; when passing through a fluid, it is good to do so as a collective in a ‘V’ pattern as one can go farther and faster for less expenditure of energy than is possible in solo mode.

    This is ‘logical stuff’. It is about ‘knowing’ and ‘knowledge’. This logical understanding is telling us, as individuals, ‘what to do’.

    Logical understanding is something we use to ‘direct’ our behaviour from the inside-outwards. It is not the same as letting our movements be orchestrated by our actual feelings of inclusion in a spatial dynamic.

    Our logic is like a ‘rule of thumb’ which we can use to direct our behaviour from the inside so as to put ourselves in position to let our real-world feelings of inclusion in a spatial dynamic ‘take over’ and orchestrate our behaviour from the outside-in (the ‘V’ formation arises when we feel ‘resonance’ in the habitat-inhabitant dynamic and move so as to sustain the resonance). Our initial inside-outward actions play the role that Wittgenstein claims that logical use of words plays in languages; i.e. it gets us to the point of insight that is ‘beyond the logic of words’, at which point the words are exposed as a nonsensical ‘ladder’ that gets us to the point where we can ‘see’ without having to be propped up by word-based logical constructions.

    The same is true in the realm of behaviour. The logic of how to behave (‘it is good to form a ‘V’ be-cause we can go farther and faster and it saves energy at the same time.’) puts us into ‘the ballpark’ where we can let ‘feelings’ of resonance that we are ‘co-cultivating’ orchestrate our individual and collective behaviour. It is not by ‘logical analysis’ that nature orchestrates and organizes behaviour, … ‘logical analysis’ is what we use to model behaviour, and for ease and convenience, we model behaviour in terms of ‘what things do’, as if they are local material objects whose movements are due either to locally applied internal forces and/or internally originating forces.

    Logic is something we use to direct our behaviour from the inside-outwards. That is, logic implies that we are local, independently-existing material objects/organisms/systems with our own locally originating, internal process-driven and internal knowledge and purpose-directed behaviours, acting/interacting in absolute fixed and empty (Euclidian) space.

    Feeling (intuition) is what we use to ‘get in the zone’ and ‘stay in the zone’. Feeling ‘trumps’ logic since it is based on ‘actuality’ what logic is based on ‘idealisation’ generalized from the ‘actuality’ of real-life experience.

    When you are swimming in a turbulent flow, the flow will teach you how to move, thanks to your ability to ‘feel’ the relative difference between resonance and dissonance as it arises in the conjugate habitat-inhabitant dynamic relation (an ‘in-the-now’ relational experience). That is, the teaching-learning is intrinsically ‘in-the-now’. You can develop your skill at tuning in to the ‘resonances’ but such ‘learning’ is not ‘knowledge’ that you can package and take away or articulate and share. It is like the skill of attuning to multiple simultaneous influences in riding a bicycle (one cannot articulate a ten-dimensional dynamic).

    Life is full of situations that invite you to let yourself be ‘taught’ and your behaviour be ‘orchestrated’ by resonances/dissonances in the spatial dynamics you are included in. If you insist on using logic to direct your behaviour from the inside-towards-the-outside, then you are shutting down your ability to learn directly from ‘experience-in-the-now’. Natural lovers let themselves be orchestrated by the emergence of pleasurable resonances. Like the wildgeese and/or musicians, they ‘stir things up’ and then respond to the harmonies in what they have stirred up. The logic/knowledge of ‘what they should do’ (where ‘they’ see themselves as ‘local systems with their own local agency’) that they read in a Masters & Johnson’s sex manual can only get them in the ballpark where they then have to let outside-inward orchestration in-the-unfolding-now take over from the time-based inside-outwards internal logical directing of their movements.

    Just as Wittgenstein says that the ladder-of-words can be tossed aside as nonsense once one is position to let ‘insight’ (that transcends words) take over, so it is with sex manuals and manuals on how to ride a bicycle. It is not a logical operation. It is not reducible to a sequence of time-based actions. One must let one-self be orchestrated by the resonances in the spatial dynamic that one is helping to stir.

    This is my intended meaning when I distinguish between (a) ‘spatial-forcing’ (behaviour/organization induced ‘in-the-now’ by resonances in the spatial dynamic) and (b) ‘local forcing’ (behaviour/organization directed by time-based logical instruction).

    The observer of VISIBLE DYNAMIC PHENONOMENA can describe, using ‘logic’, what the wildgeese and/or the lovers and/or the bicycle rider are doing in terms of ‘material dynamics’ but such logical description is radically incomplete in that it fails to comprehend that the behaviour/organisation derives from INVISIBLE resonances that involve multiple in-the-now (simultaneous) mutual influences available to our INVISIBLE ‘feeling experience’.

    So when you substitute your ‘bipolar’ definitions of ‘yin’ for (a) and ‘yang’ for (b), you are reducing both the common denominator of ‘logic’, time based material dynamics. But logic, bipolar or otherwise, is inherently incapable of dealing with the dynamics of invisible feelings associated with invisible resonances as in our attuned in-the-now experience which manifests as visible behaviour/organisation. It is an easy trap to fall into, to mistakenly attribute the source of such resonance-attuning dynamics to logic/knowledge directing the individual’s behaviour through its individual ‘mind/brain’. That confusion is otherwise known as ‘science’; i.e. the ‘vulgarized science’ of the popular, mainstream variety.

    The problem that arises from this confusion has now’t to do with ‘how the mind of the individual works, as you claim; i.e;

    “These bipolar views indicate more about how the mind works, than how the universe works. … But neither bipolar view, in and of itself, is valid, but both are. Only by logically resolving the bipolar nature of the brain will it be possible to determine the nature of reality. … You’ve gotta work the logic both ways.”

    Our relationship with the spatial dynamics of nature in which we are included transcends ‘how our individual mind functions’. Invisible spatial resonances that we attune to by our ‘feelings’ (invisible, in-the-now experience) orchestrates not only individual but collective behaviour (as in the ‘V’).

    Understanding the difference between (a) in-the-now spatial-forcing by way of feeling experience, and (b) sequential-time-based local-forcing directed by logic is, contrary to your above statement, more about ‘how the universe works’ than about ‘how the mind of an individual works’.

    As Alexander Pope observed in his ‘Essay on Man’;

    In pride, in reasoning pride, our error lies;

    (we use our logic to direct our actions to the achieving of a predicted result)

    Heav’n from all creatures hides the book of Fate,
    All but the page prescribed, their present state;

    Letting ourselves be orchestrated by the cultivating of spatial-relational resonances is something we are equipped for, as experients of in-the-now feeling. Putting logic into an unnatural primacy is meanwhile driving us into dysfunction.

    It is not about ‘two poles of logic both being valid and working the logic in two directions’, it is about acknowledging the natural primacy of feelings over logic, in sourcing behaviour/organisation (even ‘lowly’ matter and the planets are capable of in-the-now feeling of [and being orchestrated by] gravity [gravity is everywhere-in-the-universe-at-the-same-time]). Man is no exception [man needn’t think of himself as a local system whose behaviour/organisation is exclusively directed by internal logic [as in ‘knowledge’ and ‘purpose’]).

    ted

  5. ellocogringo Says:

    Hi Ted
    Your rigid adherence to your local forcing/spacial forcing with spacial forcing taking primacy, only indicates that your right mind is dominant. Why do you think that? Do not use “just cause”, “it is obvious”, or circular logic like you did in your last missive, or any derivatives thereof. I would call it a yin mind but your thought patterns are different than an orientals. It could be an Amerind mind, or you could be nuts. I’ve only got a database of one, so I’ll reserve judgment. You’re only half right. I’ll try again. You had sent two diagrams one of a satellite picture of a hurricane and the other of a schematic representation of it. I’ll discard the diagram, that’s outside the skull. Starting with “something out there is doing something we don’t understand” – Sir Arthur Eddington. So we zoom in on this hurricane till we are being buffeted by 150 mph winds screaming in our ears. Or we zoom out to the point the earth is no longer visible. All across this scale we see and hear totally different things. Just depends on the scale. This is perception, got nothing to do with top down/bottom up, yin/yang or anything else concerning conceptualization. So this “something” is causing vectors, or whorls or patterns or whatever word you choose in the frequency domain in the right mind. The left mind evaluates these patterns, throws away a dimension, adds an artificial “time” element, to interpret these patterns as color, movement and sound.

    What we think about this is separate and distinct from, but synchronized with the perception of this event. You think bottom up, so you’re masturbating in your right mind. Main stream physics (in the west) thinks top down, so they’re masturbating in their left mind.

    What I’m trying to tell you, Mr Ted, is you’re still inside the skull. The “something” is outside. Speaking of “primacy” is ridiculous. You can’t have a forest without trees. “SOMETHING” is made up of a whole bunch of “somethings” AND a whole bunch of “somethings” make up a “SOMETHING”. Neither can stand on it’s own.

    You’ve got to work the logic both ways.

    walt

  6. hi walt,

    your statements are very confident, more than my own, it seems. it’s not that i am not confident about my own understanding, it’s just that i suspend my confidence when it comes to judging others since i can’t get inside of their experience.

    you seem to put a lot of value on ‘perception’. moreso than me, it seems. does this mean i am ‘masturbating in my right mind’? what is a ‘right mind’? you classify me as a ‘bottom-up thinker’ but i keep saying that i am referring to ‘experience’ rather than to ‘thinking’. ‘experiencing-in-the-now’ is the gold standard for me, … ‘thinking’ is something less. that’s how i understand it.

    you say;

    “Starting with “something out there is doing something we don’t understand” – Sir Arthur Eddington. So we zoom in on this hurricane till we are being buffeted by 150 mph winds screaming in our ears. Or we zoom out to the point the earth is no longer visible. All across this scale we see and hear totally different things. Just depends on the scale. This is perception, got nothing to do with top down/bottom up, yin/yang or anything else concerning conceptualization.”

    i don’t agree with the basic premise; i.e. ‘something out there is doing something we don’t understand’. if we assume that we are included in the spacetime continuum there is no ‘something out there’. that is, ‘the we that is reaching out to grasp what is going on out there is the ‘what is going on out there’.

    there is no ‘something’ and there are no ‘somethings’ that make up the ‘something’. all of this talk of ‘things’ implies ‘being’, and there is no ‘being’ in ‘becoming’. the spacetime continuum can be understood as a ‘becoming’ that includes us. we are feature of the ‘becoming’. we are not a ‘something’. the hurricane is not a ‘something’ but a feature of the becoming (the flow0 so that we can’t perceive ‘it’ from various distances, because there is no ‘it’. instead of us perceiving the ‘same thing’ across different scales, there is only ‘our experiencing’ of the becoming we are included in as our situational inclusion in the dynamic one-ness of the continual ‘becoming’ changes.

    i accept that you prefer to ground your understanding in ‘being’ while i prefer to ground my understanding in ‘becoming’.

    but when you tell me that ‘it is ridiculous’ to speak of the ‘primacy’ of ‘becoming’ over ‘being’ (of holodynamics over the dynamics of ‘things’) then you put us back into the standoff between heraclitus and parmenides. it is an ‘old standoff’.

    since neither of us can prove that our position is the correct one, what is the point? we are in the same sort of standoff as between the ‘Cantorian realists’ and the ‘pragmatist idealists’ that poincare writes about. i don’t believe that sovereign states exist but many are convinced of it. law historians have pointed out there belief in sovereignty is religious belief, so that is where such differences bottom out, in unprovable claims based on nothing other than common belief.

    what you call ‘real’ is, to me, ‘idealisation’ (e.g. a ‘something’ made of ‘somethings’). that is, ‘things’ are not real, flow is. that is schroedinger’s position and mine as well.

    as i say, it seems to me that you ground your understanding in ‘being’ while i ground my understanding in ‘becoming’. ‘things’ as in ‘somethings’ and/or ‘something’-made-of-‘somethings’ are, in my understanding, ‘idealizations’ that must not be confused for reality (by reality i intend ‘nature’s dynamic’ that includes me, aka ‘the becoming’ aka ‘the great mysterious’)

    ted

    • ellocogringo Says:

      The Great mysterious, I like that, that will work for “something”, or reality. I have a great deal of confidence in my understanding of the mind. I have very little confidence in my understanding of the universe. I am merely pointing out to you that your worldview is not inconsistent with the (eastern) view of Nirvana. “the entire universe can be experienced” in this state.” To which I would amend “AS EXPERIENCED BY US”, which makes it valid, in my view. With this caveat it is also not inconsistent with yin, or female, or bottom up or any of a number of ways of expressing the bipolar nature of the mind. The difference, to me, lies only with the worldview, (experiences, imprinting, education, culture etc.) By the way, I notice that you keep switching words depending on the topic. If I say something you refute it by citing my words as being grounded in a false reality, then blithely go on to do the same thing. BTW if you can’t use words or observations just what, exactly, are you using?

      I find this quote of his pertinent.

      “The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind… To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff. As is often the way with crude statements, I shall have to explain that by “mind” I do not exactly mean mind and by “stuff” I do not at all mean stuff. Still that is about as near as we can get to the idea in a simple phrase. The mind-stuff of the world is something more general than our individual conscious minds; but we may think of its nature as not altogether foreign to feelings in our consciousness… Having granted this, the mental activity of the part of world constituting ourselves occasions no great surprise; it is known to us by direct self-knowledge, and we do not explain it away as something other than we know it to be — or rather, it knows itself to be.”

      Or this
      The external world of physics has thus become a world of shadows. In removing our illusions we have removed the substance, for indeed we have seen that substance is one of the greatest of our illusions. Later perhaps we may inquire whether in our zeal to cut out all that is unreal we may not have used the knife too ruthlessly. Perhaps, indeed, reality is a child which cannot survive without its nurse illusion. But if so, that is of little concern to the scientist, who has good and sufficient reasons for pursuing his investigations in the world of shadows and is content to leave to the philosopher the determination of its exact status in regard to reality. In the world of physics we watch a shadowgraph performance of the drama of familiar life. The shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper. It is all symbolic, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. Then comes the alchemist Mind who transmutes the symbols. The sparsely spread nuclei of electric force become a tangible solid; their restless agitation becomes the warmth of summer; the octave of aethereal vibrations becomes a gorgeous rainbow. Nor does the alchemy stop here. In the transmuted world new significances arise which are scarcely to be traced in the world of symbols; so that it becomes a world of beauty and purpose — and, alas, suffering and evil.
      The frank realisation that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant of recent advances.

      but not this

      otion with respect to the universal ocean of aether eludes us. We say, “Let V be the velocity of a body through the aether”, and form the various electromagnetic equations in which V is scattered liberally. Then we insert the observed values, and try to eliminate everything which is unknown except V. The solution goes on famously; but just as we have got rid of all the other unknowns, behold! V disappears as well, and we are left with the indisputable but irritating conclusion — 0 = 0

      nor this

      The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

      Still, not bad considering his era. all in all a pretty fart smeller.

      walt

    • ellocogringo Says:

      I checked out the contrarians and the provacatists. I despair. Grown men arguing about such silliness. Are there really people who think that if there is not a sentience looking at something, it doesn’t exist?

      BTW the comment on your site about the aboriginal and medieval man sharing a world view would seem to be off. The aboriginal worldview is all about flexibility, the medieval all about rigidity. This assumes that you have a typical aboriginal worldview and Thomas Aquinas was correct in his observation that there is no virtue if there is no choice (when speaking of religious hijacking) In fact, the western world view (medieval or otherwise) seems to be consistent since the neolithic. I really don’t think that’s what you’re trying to say. Or else I’m really confused.

      The image keeps surfacing of amerind tribes fighthing wars over whether earth belongs to man or man doesn’t belong to earth. The answer is YES! So simple, it just takes a tiny step. Whoever came up with that slogan was able to work the logic both ways and come up with what I take to be the core concept of the aboriginal world view, the concept without which all the myths based on it crumble into dust. This is only my take on it, and I am by no means an authority. If valid, it is essential that the chief understand the core concept. (that’s true in any worldview) for the brave mother earth/father eagle will suffice. Yet another bipolar representation of projecting the workings of the mind on the world.

      I started out 50 yrs ago wondering why people are dumb, the best I can come up with is just cause.

      Your imagery of midwifing a new civilization is excellent. Then you break out in your bottom up thinking which is almost incomprehensible to a top down thinker. I don’t do any better tho.

      walt

  7. walt,

    i don’t think we’re the first ones to bump into this difference that people have in their mode of understanding, that shows up way down deep in the very basics.

    it may separate you and i, and if so, what do we do about that? do we just agree to disagree and walk away? isn’t this difference important? that is, isn’t this difference, which divides people by their mode of understanding and thus by their understanding-directed behaviour, important to the world dynamic and therefore important to our understanding of the world dynamic?

    of course, if we are so convinced our the correctness of our own position, we may launch a political offensive to eliminate the ‘other mode of understanding’. we may launch a genocidal offensive against the culture that arises from ‘the other mode of understanding’, like the western european colonizers launched against the indigenous aboriginals who believed that ‘all men are brothers’ who were entitled to their ‘different modes of understanding’.

    defending against genocidal offensives is not the simple, logical opposite of launching genocidal offensives. the belief that all men arise from the same sacred space in the manner that all storm-cells arise from the same flow is not the simple, logical opposite of each storm-cell having its own ‘local being’ and being equipped with its own locally-originating (internal process-driven behaviour).

    to an aboriginal, and to myself, it is ‘silly’ to confuse idealisation with the reality of natural experience and so believe that the ‘emergence’ (aka ‘birth’) of a new ‘system’ or ‘organism’ represents something ‘absolutely new’ that comes from ‘beyond the flow that was always there’; i.e. like a spark that descends from heaven that is the engine for this new arrival. and to further believe that this new entrant/inhabitant is going to negotiate a place for itself in its habitat by a local pushing and shoving match, so that it conceives of itself as an independent local agent in a ‘feedback loop’ with a mutually exclusive ‘habitat’ called ‘the environment’ (all that which it is not).

    this silly view is what one gets when one imputes god-like local internal first-cause to the storm-cell and affirms its ‘local being and local agency’ ABSOLUTELY.

    in this wave of silliness, gone is the understanding that the flow-universe informs the gathering of the visually local emergent flow-feature and continues to inhabit and inform the inhabitant since the inhabitant is a feature is ‘local and independent’ only in terms of visual observing of an ‘observer’ who believes only what he sees. it is not possible to ‘see’ the influence of the unfolding-enfolding flow continuum (the ‘entire flow-universe’) informing its emerging flow-features. so, the ‘silliness’ resides in constraining our mode of understanding to imputing the visible aspect of dynamic phenomena to be ‘all she wrote’ giving the notion of ‘local origination’ to the dynamics of the flow-feature when such motion in inherently nonlocally informed.

    a believer in such ‘silliness’ when he finds himself in the midst of abundance, surrounded by banana trees, mangos, potato-roots, coconuts, wild pigs, is going to believe, when he moves to acquire this or the other, that he is endowed with ‘choice’, rather than acknowledging that his (individual and collective) behaviour is orchestrated by the dynamics (cyclically emerging fruits) of the space he is included in. this silliness is otherwise known as his ‘reas’ning pride’ and belief in his ‘independent existence’.

    all of the above is an answer to the question you ask; … “Are there really people who think that if there is not a sentience looking at something, it doesn’t exist?”

    YES!, …one such person is myself.

    but, reflect for a moment as to what that ‘means’ in the light of the above comments.

    insofar as the ‘something’ is imputed to map one-for-one into what can be visually observed (the local visible storm-cell) and fails to acknowledge its innately nonlocal origin and behaviour-orchestration deriving from the dynamic of the flow-universe it is included in, this thing does not exist unless it is observed.

    for the person who grounds his understanding in ‘local things’, the ‘sentience’ is what is left flapping in the breeze, while for the person who grounds his understanding in ‘sentience’, the ‘local things’ are what is left flapping in the breeze; e.g.

    “ … if there is not [a sentience looking] at some[thing], [it] doesn’t exist?”

    as john stuart mill observed; ‘every definition [of a local visible flow-feature] implies an axiom, that in which we affirm the ‘existence’ of the object defined.’

    the ‘existence’ of a local object/organism/system is something created by the observer when he reduces his sentience (as a flow-feature in the flow) to mere ‘vision’ and ignores his full-blown sentient experience (e.g. of inclusion in a flow-continuum).

    revising the sentence that you formulated, we give alternative expression to the same notion as follows;

    “…. the flow-feature in the flow is not endowed with ‘local being’ in-its-own-right without the intellectual operation of an observer/experient who invents the notion of a ‘thing’ endowed with ‘local being’ by invoking only the visual aspect of the ‘thing’ (discarding the understanding that it is an expression of the dynamics of the universe), and by describing, defining and naming it, creating ‘it’ as an ‘it’.”

    the aboriginal mode of understanding the world, in books, is often described in terms that the individual believes that he is singing the world into existence. this sounds wonky to ‘us’ (of the western culture) because we have been brought up believing in the notion of ‘local beings’ with ‘locally originating behaviours, so that it sounds as if the unfolding of the universe is originating from the singing aboriginal. but to the aboriginal, nothing starts from within the local visual material system, … the ‘singing’ of the storm-cells is a celebration of the mother-flow-universe that creates and continues to inhabit them, their expressing their feelings is, at the same time, the universe expressing through them.

    a person, such as myself, whose understanding is of the type you question; “Are there really people who think that if there is not a sentience looking at something, it doesn’t exist?”, … believes that the flow or the ‘becoming’ is the natural ‘reality’ and thus believes that each of us and all flow-features are included in the “becoming” (spatial-relationally transforming energy-field-flow or ‘space-time continuum’) which is continually gathering and re-gathering allowing us to visualize it (secondarily) through its newly emergent/developing visible aspect; i.e. its flow-features.

    to re-render this understanding, as our western culture is skilled at, in terms of ‘local material things (objects/organisms/systems) notionally equipped with ‘their own locally originating, internal process-driven and internal knowledge and purpose-directed behaviours’, … that act/interact in an absolute fixed and empty space’, … may be a clever way to simplify and discuss ‘what is going on’, basing it on visual observations which we ‘reify’ with language and definitions. but all this is ‘idealisation’ THAT WE CONFUSE FOR ‘REALITY’ only at the price of infusing incoherence and dysfunction into the ‘real’ world dynamic, a transforming (spatial-relational) continuum which is not directly ‘visible’ (the real world dynamic, as is the case with ‘energy-field-flow’, is ‘invisible’ except indirectly, through the gathering of visible forms).

    so, yes, people really do exist that believe that local objects exist only if there is a sentience observing them, … but i would be quick to qualify this and say that ‘such existence’ is not of the same ‘reality quality’ as that of ‘the flow’ in the same sense that the ‘local being’ of the ‘storm-cell’ is not of the same ‘reality quality’ as that of the flow of the atmosphere in which it makes a ‘visual appearance’; i.e. ‘local being’ does not have the same depth of grounding in the dynamic ‘reality’ of nature as ‘nonlocal becoming’. ‘local being’ is the invention of the sentient observer that grounds his understanding in the visual aspect of his experience, ‘demoting’ if not ‘discarding’ understanding that comes to him from the non-visible influence of ‘energy-fields’, and comes up with a world view based on ‘local things’ notionally equipped with ‘their own locally originating agency’.

    what is clear is that we, whoever, whatever we are, can ground our understanding in either ‘becoming’ or ‘being’. is this not a point of some worth relative to our understanding of one another?

    ted

    • ellocogringo Says:

      >so, yes, people really do exist that believe that local objects exist only if there is a sentience observing them>

      Aha! Now I agree. Local is the key word. I’m going to try your pathfinder mode. Observe only, do not analyze or interpret.

      Something is happening outside the skull which causes something to happen inside the skull. At this transition point it changes from spacial to local. Take, for instance, do, re, mi, fa of the musical scale, whatever is happening out there is causing us to hear these four tones.

      This is what is happening in the right mind. Consider the following visualization ://www.divshare.com/direct/10818121-fcf.swf This is what everything thinks is happening. Not so. This is in fact the frequency domain, time is non-existant. So the sine waves are outside the skull on the output side. All that is really happening is the rotating vectors. How I got here requires a diversion which gets us off track.

      This is what is happening in the left mind http://www.falstad.com/fourier/ The contents of the right mind are quantified (in the seismic sense) one dimension is thrown away and an artificial element time is added. Turn the sound up. check the three boxes (sound, mag phase and log) My isn’t that annoying? do not turn the sound down yet. Click on the triangle button (third from the top) How odd, a non-annoying tone is now coming out of your speakers. Slide the number of terms bar all the way to the left Then click the right arrow on the bar to increase the terms one at a time. What you will hear is do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do. Isn’t that odd?

      Don’t form any conclusions yet. Put Captain Seismic in the brig and ruptured eagle on his perch. Just let the input data cook unhindered by logic.

      This is perception only. This is all happening at the axon level of the minds. It does not address the logic level (dendrite). I will go into how later. You need the basic framework first. Play around with the parameters of the visualizations. Pay attention to the “annoying”.

      All of the answers to all the worlds problems are readily available if only people could use all of their brain, instead of only half.

      I may not be available after Wed, so I’m kinda in a hurry. Call me if you don’t see what I’m talking about. This is indeed important. 205-476-6099

  8. walt,

    i hear you, … i am listening to you, and i accept that you have a way of understanding that ‘works for you’.

    i have looked at the fourier analysis/synthesis displays you referenced, and maybe different things ‘come to my mind’ (without deliberately analyzing). for example, where you say;

    “Take, for instance, do, re, mi, fa of the musical scale, WHATEVER IS HAPPENING OUT THERE IS CAUSING US TO HEAR THESE FOUR TONES..”

    what comes to my mind is that the dynamics of the inhabitants of space are orchestrated by the habitat dynamic, … the drumhead will produce the same natural resonances whether it is struck by the hand or by a gust of wind. the winds of the tacoma narrows excited resonances in the tacoma bridge and induced it to rock and roll to the point that it couldn’t stand the excitement and came apart at the seams.

    mach’s principle would say that the dynamic of the habitat conditions the dynamics of the inhabitant at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitant are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat. i.e. the dynamics of inside and outside are relative because ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ are relative (as in storm-cell-inhabitants and flow-habitat).

    i know, you would like me to suspend my ‘analytical inquiry’ but i have to say that you seem, to me, to start off with ‘analytical concepts’ like ‘out there’ and ‘causation’ (something ‘out there’ is causing us to experience something ‘in here’).

    fourier analysis and synthesis is interesting and useful, but it is not ‘real’. there is no such thing as a pure tone (a ‘sine wave’). it is a mathematical concept that requires that the ‘rotating vector’ never changes its periodicity over the interval of time that ranges from minus infinity to plus infinity. as dennis gabor pointed out, there is nothing ‘real’ in fourier synthesis/analysis. when we blow a note on a musical instrument, it is finite in duration and rich in tonality (gabor suggests that a better model would be ‘the logon’ which is a kind of ‘volume’ or spatial packet of resonance). kepler came to this same idea of spatial-relational resonance, noting that the harmony in the movement of individual planets or combinations thereof, was not the most profound aspect of the celestial dynamic, but that the overall spatial-relational harmony was; in his terms the dynamic unity in spatial volume.

    every time we notionally ‘get rid of spatial volume’ and the understanding of motion in terms of spatial relations, we drop into the use of ‘time language’ as in ‘what things do’ (the planets go around the sun, taking one year (time) to do so). this drops out the complication that the sun and planets move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence (a spatial-relational concept that cannot be split apart into the movement of local objects). the latter concept implicitly invokes the notion of absolute space and absolute time.

    without imposing all this absoluteness, we could assume that the dynamics of the atmosphere-habitat induce the emergence of the storm-cell inhabitants and orchestrate their individual and collective behaviour. if we pick a banana to eat, did we choose to, or did the filling of space with fruit orchestrate our action; yes and yes, but there is a natural over-ride here. we can only choose between what is possible and space is in control of the smorgasbord of spatial possibility it opens up for us.

    could you not think of yourself in this way, (not as being the local director of your own internally originating behaviour but) as emerging to answer a call to take your place in the natural scheme of things, to the best you can attune to the dynamics of the habitat you find yourself situationally included in.

    if not, we have to construct a view of oneself in local terms, as in set theory. we then see ourselves as a member of a genus of local systems identified by its parts (analysis) and how they work together (synthesis); i.e. ‘two legs’, ‘two arms’, head, heart, liver etc. what we get out of this is a local of a point in the centre of the system/organism which describes its movement in absolute time and absolute space (not in terms of spatial relations as relativity would have it). we can then further distinguish this machine by ‘what it does’ without having to consider that its behaviour is orchestrated by the dynamics of space it is situationally included in.

    fourier analysis and synthesis follows this same logic, of defining dynamics in terms of the dynamics of local systems that seem to take on a reality of their own by idealising them in terms of their parts and how the parts work together to create a notional ‘local whole’.

    in this manner (defining things as ‘local’ by taking them apart and putting them back together again) we get rid of the dominance of the ‘wind that was always there’ in which the drum emerged like a fish in water, ready to rock and roll in resonance with its fluid-creatrice.

    ted

  9. ellocogringo Says:

    Mr Ted
    could you not think of yourself in this way, (not as being the local director of your own internally originating behaviour but) as emerging to answer a call to take your place in the natural scheme of things, to the best you can attune to the dynamics of the habitat you find yourself situationally included in.

    But I do. Unfortunately no one else does. So, unless your goal is to communicate with the “Great Mysterious” (I like that) You’re pissing in the wind. If that is your goal, be sure to keep me informed. For myself, I would consider it a success to be able to communicate with others who think that local forcing has validity.

    what comes to my mind is that the dynamics of the inhabitants of space are orchestrated by the habitat dynamic,

    Yup, this is what I call the beat of eight, Pythagoras the octave, milo wolfe as the eight fold way of the universe and musicians the basic miracle of music, and Plato equated it to the dudecohedron. One might be tempted to think that this is the resonant frequency of the universe. But, alas, we can’t think yet, we’re still on perception.

    What do you make of the observation that the triangle wave doesn’t have dissonance? Keep in mind that our minds put that dissonance in there. IE “that don’t sound right” Why is everything else annoying?

    Just let that simmer unless you have other observations. Remember, we’re just gathering data. Next I’ll go into the “cutting edge” silliness in psychology that equates to the silliness of quantum mechanics, parallel universes etc, the holographic mind, the fractal mind, etc. that gives psychologists the delusional feeling of understanding and power. And this silliness is projected by us onto and colors our understanding of the universe.

    walt

    • ellocogringo Says:

      And we’re walking. More data to be assimilated.

      Malays see three colors in the rainbow, europeans see seven, americans and chinese see five. Isn’t that odd? Malay is a primitive language, the math consists of one, two and many. Newton tried to incorporate the “divine octave” into the spectrum coming up with seven, the standard for europe.

      The octave in not universal. In Japan, for instance they use the pentatigonal scale.

      It is annoying to the western ear.

      1873, a British traveler claimed that Japanese music, “exasperate[s] beyond all endurance the European breast.”

      Japanese scales have great significance within Japanese traditional culture. The five notes of the pentatonic scales are given male and female characteristics, and represent the five basic elements of earth, water, fire, wood and metal.

      Unlike western music theory, the root note of Japanese scales is considered to be not the first, but the central third note, which better suits their concept of balance. For the sake of comparison though, we are showing these scales as if they start from the first note.

      To the japanese ear western music is discordent. Isn’t that odd? This seems to indicate that there is more than one “heavenly harmony”

      what this means is that your experience of a hurricane may be and probably is totally different from another’s, and may in fact be unique.

      I am reminded of the bleem, a newly discovered number that comes between 6 and 7.

      Are you surprised you’re having communication problems?

      walt

  10. hi walt,

    with regard to ‘whom i would like to communicate with’, … of course i would like to communicate with those for whom ‘local forcing has validity’. what i would like to share with them is the manner in which the ‘validity’ of ‘local forcing’ is limited. this is equivalent to sharing how the ‘causal’ model is limited. since the causal model (the model wherein we assume that the present depends only on the immediate past, an assumption built in to ‘mainstream science’).

    like david bohm, i am not saying that it is NOT useful to launch a manhunt for the man who pulled the trigger that fired the bullet that ‘caused the death’ of abraham lincoln ) and to hold him personally responsible for the damage that ‘resulted’ from his action, … i am simply saying that there is ‘more to dynamics’ than understood by way of the NOTION of the cause-and-effect results of notional local material agents seen as possessing ‘their own locally originating, internal purpose-directed behaviour’, acting on other notional local material agents.

    if we could intercept a ‘hurricane katrina’ and disempower it prior to ‘its wreaking havoc’ on new orleans, this use of our belief that ‘local forcing has validity’ seems legitimate enough, but ‘prevention’ is not the same sort of logic as ‘punishment’; i.e. chasing it down after the fact so that it will never be able to repeat such a heinous act presumes that the originating source of the behaviour resides within the ‘causal agent’.

    in a hot summer, many hurricanes can be spawned by the conditions of the space that they are included in. also in a hot summer, many radical political activists can be spawned by the conditions of the space that they are included in. actions to prevent these notional ‘causal agents’ from doing ‘their dirty deeds’ may make sense, but attenuated the emergence of, and disempowering these ‘agents’ can be achieved in a ‘more realistic’ manner by operating on the ‘conditions’ of the space that they are emerging from and deriving their intensity from.

    sure, the despots who oppress others by way of controlling access to spatial resources (the land and the wealth that derives from it) are going to try to stop the political activists who are spawned by, and who gather their intensity/power from the spatial conditions (oppression) before they do their dirty deeds AND AFTER THEY DO THEIR DIRTY DEEDS. this is because ‘those in control’ embrace the ‘local forcing’ model wherein the ‘nasty behaviour’ is of a ‘locally originating, internal-purpose-directed’ origin, period, full stop, that’s all she wrote.

    there is denial here that THE DYNAMIC CONDITIONS OF SPACE are the source not only of the emergence of these notional ‘local systems’ notionally equipped with ‘their own local, internally-powered and directed behaviours’, but are also the deeper source of their animation; i.e. these ‘systems’, like the sailboat, derive their power and steerage from the dynamics of the space they are included in.

    WHAT WE SEE ARE THE ‘LOCAL SYSTEMS’ AND THE DAMAGE’ AND WE NOTICE A ‘CORRELATION’; EVERY TIME ONE OF THESE ‘LOCAL SYSTEMS’ GOES INTO ACTION, DAMAGE RESULTS.

    this confusion of ‘correlation for cause’ is how ‘mainstream science works’. this is the very basis of ‘allopathic medical science’ (naturalist medicine does not ‘buy’ into this, nor did Pasteur and Béchamp [“the pathogen is nothing, the terrain is everything]) and the very basis of our western system of justice (the native american justice system did not have an ‘eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth’ ethic. after the fact of eliminating the tyrant who was the source of an oppressive space, the assassin is no longer ‘an assassin’ since the source of the emergence of the assassin [the conditions of space] no longer prevail).

    there is a correlation between rising greenhouse gases such as CO2 and rising temperatures (spatial condition), just as there is a correlation between rising incidences of dissident violence and intensifying spatial oppression (police brutality) in an democratic oligarchy (tyranny of the majority).

    if the oligarchy define themselves as ‘good people’ who are managing the conditions in their community space for the good of all citizens, then there is only one choice for where to impute the source of the nasty deeds of the ‘dissidents’; i.e. ‘the buck stops’ in their internal processes and purposes. the allopathic model is applied and ‘space’ [Pasteur’s ‘le terrain’] is understood as ‘non-participating’. as in pre-relativity science, the science of Newton, who claimed that visible, tangible ‘matter’ was where ‘the buck stopped’ in terms of the originating of dynamic behaviour (the notion of invisible resonant-energy charged field-flow with an innately ‘spatial’ character had not yet appeared on the science scene). As Newton opined;

    “God in the Beginning form’d Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, moveable Particles.”

    What arose from ‘invisible sources’ was defined by Newton, to be ‘the hand of God’ (or the devil).

    to the oligarchy, or ‘tyrannic majority’ whose combination of power and greed corruptly leads to an increasing split in the experiencing of spatial oppression between those granted more and/or less privileged access to the possibilities inherent in the common space of community, it can only be ‘the devil’s handiwork’ that is responsible for violent dissidents; i.e. the infusing of ‘evil purpose’ into the interior of violent dissidents. What else could it be, in a world view where ‘local forcing’ is all she wrote?

    when the dissidence culminates in revolution, the oppressiveness of the common space of the community dissipates and the spatial-origins of the emergence and animating of assassins are removed. in this case, there is no longer any need to ‘punish’ the assassins for their violence, since ‘things have changed’ in a spatial sense.

    as the naturalist medical practitioner would say, ‘the attack of the pathogens’ was ‘not it’ (the ‘local forcing’ was not ‘first cause’), … the conditions of ‘the terrain’ were such that it fostered the proliferation of microbes.

    so, to close the loop in this exchange re ‘who are we communicating with?’, … you said;

    “Mr Ted
    could you not think of yourself in this way, (not as being the local director of your own internally originating behaviour but) as emerging to answer a call to take your place in the natural scheme of things, to the best you can attune to the dynamics of the habitat you find yourself situationally included in.

    But I do. Unfortunately no one else does. So, unless your goal is to communicate with the “Great Mysterious” (I like that) You’re pissing in the wind. If that is your goal, be sure to keep me informed. For myself, I would consider it a success to be able to communicate with others who think that local forcing has validity.”

    those people, in history, who become ‘violent dissidents’ do not think of themselves as having ‘evil purpose’ but are called into action by their sense of fairness, to restore ‘balance’ and ‘harmony’ in the common space of their community.

    the problem, walt, is that they(we) don’t have a ‘realistic model’ for what is going on ‘in them’ and ‘with them’. they are stuck with the western culture’s popular ‘local forcing-is-all-she-wrote’ model wherein we are each fully and solely responsible for our own actions, so that we impute the origins of our actions, ‘good, God-fearing people that we are’, to our ‘good morals and ethics’; i.e. to ‘goodness’ in the internal process-driven engine that we visualize as being the first-cause source of our behaviour (‘our behaviour’ connoting a self-image wherein we visualize ourselves as local, independently-existing material systems notionally equipped with our own internally originating, internal-process-driven, internal purpose-directed behaviour, a self-image that notionally splits us out of the dynamic space in which we are situationally included).

    but walt, people know that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”. the need for the ‘new model’ continues to call out for something to ‘fill it’. is it pissing in the wind to ‘put the product on the shelves’ ready for use when ‘the penny drops’ that it ‘fills the bill’? when recognition comes that this compulsion to scratch is no longer amorphous, but is in fact a case of ‘jock itch’, then one may appreciate that the remedy, in powder form, is already ‘in stock’ and ‘on the shelves’.

    am i going to convince a person to update their self-image, that ‘prelingual-presence’ that oversees their ‘intellectual processing capability’, as is part of the process of opening up to assimilate the needed new model wherein ‘local forcing’ is re-visualized in a larger context so that it shrinks down to be seen in the more realistic sense of ‘the child of ‘spatial-forcing’’?

    not bloody likely.

    there is no intellectual path to such a turning point, no matter how persuasive the intellectual argument is. marie antoinette was not about to let go of the lifestyle she had become accustomed to enjoying, due to political arguments about the abuse of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie (by way of manipulating control over access to the rich natural possibilities deriving from inclusion in a common space). she is going to say that she is where she is ‘by the hand of God’ and that the contemptuous filthy masses who are so loudly complaining and disturbing the peaceful tranquillity of the courtyard of her palatial digs, should accept that ‘God has spoken’ and accept that ‘His will must be done’.

    there is not much difference here between marie antoinette’s view and the view of isaac newton; i.e. he split ‘dynamics’ into two parts; (a) local forcing in terms of the dynamic actions/interactions of local material systems, and (b) the spatial-relational orchestrating of the material collective (including emergence of the new from the invisible medium of space and re-assimilation of the old into it), as if by an ‘invisible hand’;

    “… and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained ; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets ; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits ; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity ; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

    clearly, if we take ‘field’ (spatial-relational energy-flow) out of the picture, as the parenting source of ‘local material agents’ and ‘their behaviour’, then we have the situation wherein ‘might makes right’ and we can forget about ‘balance’ and ‘harmony’ in a spatial relational sense and invent morals and ethics that apply to the originators of ‘local forcing’ which, it is claimed, reside within the internals of the ‘local material systems’ aka ‘men’ who view themselves as ‘local material systems’ whose behaviour, they believe, originates locally (within them) powered by local internal biochemical processes and directed by local internal knowledge and purpose managed by a information process unit aka ‘the brain’ capable of receiving information inputs, interpreting them, generating alternative responses, deciding on which one’s to choose, and then operationalizing them.

    some of the bourgeoisie become psychologists and psychiatrists certified by the oligarchy, and trained in ways to impute the origins of ‘abnormal behaviour’ to the internals of the ‘local, independently-existing material systems’ aka ‘persons’. their certification by the oligarchy involves their agreement that they will not ‘turn their weaponry around’ (their ‘tools of inquiry’ into the ‘origins of dysfunction/abnormality’) and target the oligarchy itself and its management. psychiatry applied in reverse to the many forms of abnormality in the central regulatory authority is termed ‘political dissidence’ and is often punished rather than licenced, condoned and supported by the oligarchy. the gulag archipelago was filled with ‘abnormals’, pumped full of ‘anti-psychotic’ drugs to keep them from relapsing into the delusion that it was the oligarchy and their conditioning of the common space, rather than themselves, that was the source of dysfunction.

    of course, an understanding of the social dynamic is only ‘in terms of’ the polarization between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat to the extent that we leave out the ‘spatial origins’ of dynamics. the bourgeoisie (oligarchy) and the ‘proletariat’ (oligarchiat) are just ‘phases’ in a cycle that occurs within the dynamic common space, the former proletariat, in the turning of the times, becomes the new bourgeoisie and the former bourgeoisie become the new proletariat, so the circle continues to turn.

    so, as you say, the frequency realm is the natural ‘reality’ while the time realm is a reduced synthetic (idealized) reality based solely on ‘that which is visible’ that we confuse for ‘first cause’. (your scheme compares the frequency realm and time realm by way of a model of the brain, rather than in a fullblown spatial context); e.g. we all experience the oppressiveness that comes via the conditioning of the common space we share inclusion in, and we acknowledge its influence on our behaviour, but the standard model of our western acculturation splits things into (a) visible material dynamics and (b) the invisible hand, …. of…. ‘God’ or ‘Chance’; i.e. we implicitly assume random chance and/or God (creationism or darwinism) for (b) the spatial-relational orchestrating of the material collective (including emergence of the new from the invisible medium of space and re-assimilation of the old into it), as if by an ‘invisible hand’.

    similar to your critique of my SPATIAL rendering of the frequency realm as it relates to the time realm, your ‘cartography of the psyche’ rendering can likewise be critiqued; i.e. what is the market for communicating it to? it seems to me that it is not the folks in the gulag archipelago that are in need of it, but the stewards of social justice who have put them there, who do not acknowledge that they are the source of the problem. that is, you may have a market for communicating your cartography of the psyche rendering of frequency and time amongst the ‘troubled’ who are looking for answers, but there is little market for it amongst those who need it; i.e. those who ‘understand what needs to be done’ and are working energetically to bring about ‘the just society’ by way of ‘local forcing’.

    it would appear that you are ‘preaching to the choir’ while i am trying to stock shelves with a product not yet in demand.

    ted

  11. walt,

    when you speak of ‘frequency’ in the context of japanese and british/european music, you are speaking about time-based cyclicity (pitch). as gabor pointed out, we have both ‘pitch’ and ‘rhythm’ and these two dynamics are not interchangeable in nature. for example, if we double the pitch by playing the same tune an octave higher, we can’t compensate by doubling or halving the rhythm (pace) and end up with an ‘equivalent’ sound experience. the sound experience is spatial-relation dependent (the experience of the boat in waves depends not only on the length of the waves (time-based cyclicity) but also, at the same time, on the length of the boat along the water-line.

    as kepler noted, the most profound harmony in nature is spatial relational harmony. we could put a beautiful woman on a vibrating platform and admire the oscillating of her breasts at different vibratory frequencies. cultural preferences might show up in such an assessment

    but there is also the ‘spatial-relational harmony’ that associates with the grace of movement of the limbs relative to one another and themselves as she walks across the stage (or vibrating platform). detecting the presence or absence of this spatial-relational grace seems to be commonly available to us across cultures. (e.g. see http://southerncrossreview.org/9/kleist.htm ). it associates with ‘irreducible complexity’ and to the ‘three body problem’. this appears to be present in natural vibrations; e.g. the vibrating reed and/or the wind harp. but it is not there in a computer-generated single tone or combination of single tones. this is the ‘overall’ ‘harmony’ of the celestial dynamic that newton says can only be from the hand of God. it is inherently ‘spatial-relational’ rather than time-cycle based. but all we can do with ‘theory’ (music theory) is to break things down and quantify them on a time-cycle basis, because spatial-relations are particular and situational (depend upon experiencing-in-the-now [as with our inertial guidance experience where our movement is relative to the the universe; i.e. relative to the gravitational field which is everywhere at the same time).

    ted

    • ellocogringo Says:

      >we could put a beautiful woman on a vibrating platform and admire the oscillating of her breasts at different vibratory frequencies.<

      Japanese would be shit out of luck here. Japanese women are flatchested unless nursing. Are you suggesting oriental women are flat chested because they are bottom up thinkers? Nah!

      What I'm getting at is that not only the tone merely a shadow, but it is a distorted shadow. I suspect (strongly) that a japanese physicist would find the triangle wave annoying, and would conclude that the fundamental nature of the universe is not octave but pentave (if that's a real word) and silliness would creep in as the east and the west each put forth grand theories with math to "prove" them on the "heavenly harmony". The vision of tribes fighting wars over whether "man belongs to earth" or does "the earth does not belong to man" comes again to mind. I suspect in this instance the answer is not A or B or both but neither. A new dimension of silly.

  12. ellocogringo Says:

    Mr Ted

    >it would appear that you are ‘preaching to the choir’ while i am trying to stock shelves with a product not yet in demand. http://ellocogringo.wordpress.com/12-the-aware-mind/le-cadre-noir/ This is indeed important.

    Preaching to the choir? Hardly. I recognize that it is virtually impossible for you to wrap your head around my “truth” (The ANN) as it is virtually impossible for me to wrap my head around your “truth” (local/spacial forcing) As you pointed out my “dual cognitive minds” concept is an ideology (that’s not the words you used, but that’s what it amounts to). The big difference is I KNOW IT’S AN IDEOLOGY. This knowledge enables me to explore and evaluate your concepts and logic for validity. Most people (idiots) can’t do this. So your target audience would be non-idiots. What I am trying to get you to recognize is that your “local/spacial forcing” is an ideology, albeit a perfectly valid one, virtually impossible to transfer to an idiot. Simply put, there’s a lot of jury rigging going on in the mind, perception is not hard wired and works on a “as needed” basis, it “grows” if you will. For instance, you assume that when you look at a hurricane, spiral and rotating clockwise, another person sees the same. Not so, another may see a square rotating clockwise but comes to associate the word spiral with the visual image of a square and the word counter-clockwise with the image of clockwise. This is some real squishy stuff. This presents some real communication problems when describing something as ethereal as the great mysterious. And we’re only on perception, not yet addressing problems associated with logic. As for me, I have seen nothing yet to cause me to re-evaluate my mother of all shortcuts “it ain’t real”. You know it ain’t real, and I know it ain’t real, and in the final analysis, that’s all that matters. The rest is just fluff. How we got there is, and has to be, unique.

    Top down, bottom up thinking doesn’t really apply to your thought processes. While most westerner’s right mind works in symbols, yours seems to work in concepts. IE you plug concepts into a Boolean network. It seems that when you reach a decision, rather that setting a shortcut on on a decision tree (binary) you flip into a pathfinder mode. I find this mode of communication unique and very promising. While I find your thought processes fascinating it does not address the issue of communication in other than an oblique way. I assume the difference is in the worldview, I only have a database of one.

    While my concepts were readily accessible to me, their random order was confusing to another. Talking with DrB forced me to arrange my concepts in a manner useful to another. She’s not an idiot and is stepping on my heels. She likes your pathfinder mode too. I hope you don’t mind, just because I like it doesn’t mean someone else will. I am crazy, don’t you know?

    Back to your midwives concept. There are a lot of resources that you may not be fully aware of. This guy, for instance, has got it pegged in terms of education, a vital ingredient of any solution.


    OPL walt

  13. hi walt,

    this is all very interesting to me. i am continuing to ponder it all.

    meanwhile, i am off-island for a few days and may or may not be getting to the internet during this time.

    what i meant by ‘preaching to the choir’ was that, while you may have a ‘model’ or ‘ideology’ that is more communicable (than mine), it seems to me that it nevertheless requires a ‘listener’ that is concerned about the way things are going and who believes that our whole approach amounts to ‘barking up the wrong tree’. but part of the problem is that those people who set themselves up as the saviours are like sports competitors who have to have total belief in their ability to push through and achieve victory. this ‘state of mind’ blocks out the ‘new view’ that ‘such a state of mind’ (throwing oneself fully into the task of achieving a pre-ordained goal) is the crux of the problem rather than the solution. thus, the people who are ‘in power’, who we ‘put in power’ to ‘solve the problem’ are the problem, and it is those who have no faith in that whole system who are open to new ideas. it is this latter group who will take the time to tune in to what you are saying, but not the former who believe that they, by their own supreme leadership efforts, can make things right.

    it seems to me that communications involves a new understanding of ‘leadership’ (sailboating leadership must be restored to primacy over powerboating leadership).

    anyhow, must get on the road (sea) now, … will be back later.

    ted

    • ellocogringo Says:

      Yup! what else can i say. have fun. just let this simmer. that’s the great thing about bottom up, it doesn’t require awake time. have fun walt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: