Top Down/Bottom Up

TD/BU

I know NOTHING” – Schultz, Hogan’s Heros

Bottom up thinking makes NO assumptions. “It is obvious that” has no place in bottom up thinking. Nothing is taken for granted. This is fuzzy logic (bottom up thinking) Which can be “The best answer to date” (level 1), “This idea seems to work for the moment” (level 2) or the less definitive “Could be” (Level 3)

I am painting with a broad brush here. So as not to bloat the concepts, I will omit the exceptions, special cases and disclaimers.

Fuzzy logic is a form of multi-valued logic derived from fuzzy set theory to deal with reasoning that is approximate rather than precise. In contrast with “crisp logic”, where binary sets have binary logic, the fuzzy logic variables may have a membership value of not only 0 or 1 – that is, the degree of truth of a statement can range between 0 and 1 and is not constrained to the two truth values of classic propositional logic. Oh Really!, you think so huh?

In fact what is accepted as truth in top down thinking is only Level 1 as determined by bottom up thinking. It is NEVER complete, and could be entirely wrong if hijacked by religion, education or other societal programming. If this societal programming occurs during the critical period of growth (birth-age 7 or puberty) it can become imprinting, a PERMANENT inability of the mind to accept new concepts. A person can know, but not understand a concept that does not fit into this framework. They become idiots (not used as a pejorative but as a clinical term, I am, after all, striving to be professional) The implications of this imprinting are profound. Bottom up thinking is regarded as psychotic by mental health and meta-physical bullshit by the general population. Not only is creativity crushed by this imprinting but it has resulted in a society composed of zombies (stupid people, doing stupid things for stupid reasons) living a meaningless existence in an ant warren.
An example of this is physics, in which the nature of the universe being of a wave nature is known but not understood. To date I am aware of a dozen people who understand, and half of them are dead. Some of the live ones are;
Ted Lumley>http://goodshare.org/wp/whats-the-matter/
Gabriel LaFreniere> http://glafreniere.com/sa_electron.htm
Milo Wolff> http://www.quantummatter.com/
Consider the following discussion between Chief Dan George, Erwin Schrodinger and Albert Einstein on the wave nature of the universe.
http://goodshare.org/wp/whats-the-matter/
The question was posed “is space making electrons or are electrons making space?”
Automatically excluded were the possibilities of both or neither. This is the “brain fart” a built in logic flaw in the brain.
The answer is NOT A or B but both or neither.
Please note I am not speaking of physics here, I am speaking of thinking of physics.
http://www.divshare.com/direct/12610892-4f8.pdfI recently became interested in the aboriginal framework of reasoning. I have heard it described as circular reasoning.
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.
I don’t see it that way, I see it as “wheels within wheels” and not even “what goes around comes around” but “what goes around comes around goes around etc”. For instance a 260 day calendar would seem to make no sense unless one considers that the gestation period is 260 days. Thus if a woman conceived on Tzolkin 10 she could expect the birth on Tzolkin 10, As this was synchronized with the Haab (365 day calendar) no calculation was needed. This imprinting is canabilastic in nature, like the zombie, it want’s to eat your brains. It is the Ayn Rand Beast.
Consider the Protohuman “Charlie Chimp” in the paleolithic, considering whether he should bonk Polly protohuman. Using top down thinking the answer comes out in a simplified, non-nuanced yes or no. However, As Charlie hasn’t had the social imprinting to mess up his mind, he can use another logic method. Bottom up, a weighted Boolean network with possibilities of yes, no, or maybe. The weighting aspect is an aggregate and accumulative bias. Most simply explained by the logic tree “The last time I bonked Polly protohuman, how many times did the alpha male hit me, and how hard?” Charlie compares the bottom up and top down logic and makes a decision on whether his genetic heritage will be carried on through Polly. Very useful as a bullshit detector. “Is what this guy babbling about consistent with my previous experience?” From an assholes point of view, this bullshit detector must be turned off so as to brainwash the idiot. Painting with a broad brush, “education put the sub in subconscious”, was preceded by “religion put the sub in subconscious” preceded by “the alpha male put the sub in subconscious”. (I have a fear that if I talk like an idiot I may start thinking like one.) People have lost the ability to say Bullshit!

Moving right along, when my bullshit detector goes off, I discard ALL logic and view input as data only until the issue is resolved. I have discarded all physics as speculation. It doesn’t even pass the “could be” test. It’s bullshit. Godel’s model has less bullshit than most, but it’s still bullshit. (I suspect that he may understand what he’s saying and is trying to communicate with idiots). All of his twisted logic and convoluted math doesn’t prove or disprove anything. All he has done is twist and stretch the rubber ruler till it matches observed data. My observation on this matter has been that knowledge is inversely proportional to understanding. “Stupid may be catching” – el Loco Gringo From an egocentric point of view, the disjuncture occurs inside the skull, this difference between a perception of reality and the interpretation of same. As far as I can see, the vast majority of speculation on the output side is bullshit. On the input side all I have to work with is a filtered perception. This filtered perception leads me to conclude that it has a rotational aspect (perceived) and has a beat of 8 (is recursive with a harmonic of 8) That it is vibrations and is negentropic seems too obvious to discuss. There is overwhelming evidence that it is and nothing but “common sense” that says it isn’t. I am shocked that you consider “rotating vectors” a notion. Granted it’s a kludge, but it’s the best kludge available (to date) The entire industrialized civilization is built around this kludge. By filtered I mean that we do not have input across the entire spectrum. For instance, you turn on a radio and music comes out. There is obviously something invisible happening. Depending on one’s world view, this could be interpreted as magic, god, nirvana, whatever. (Actually I kind of like the idea of god, if there is one there is no evidence he gives a shit about man, one way or the other) If the universe is harmonic vibrations, it logically follows that time, color, touch, and sound are the minds way of making sense of motion, (time) non-motion, (touch) vibrations in the 20-20khz range (sound) and 300-700Thz. (color) Every one knows it but no one understands it. It should be obvious once it is pointed out, but it isn’t to most people. Why?

In fact what is accepted as truth in top down thinking is only Level 1 as determined by bottom up thinking. It is NEVER complete, and could be entirely wrong if hijacked by religion, education or other societal programming. If this societal programming occurs during the critical period of growth (birth-age 7 or puberty) it can become imprinting, a PERMANENT inability of the mind to accept new concepts. A person can know, but not understand a concept that does not fit into this framework. They become idiots (not used as a pejorative but as a clinical term, I am, after all, striving to be professional) The implications of this imprinting are profound. Bottom up thinking is regarded as psychotic by mental health and meta-physical bullshit by the general population. Not only is creativity crushed by this imprinting but it has resulted in a society composed of zombies (stupid people, doing stupid things for stupid reasons) living a meaningless existence in an ant warren.Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.I don’t see it that way, I see it as “wheels within wheels” and not even “what goes around comes around” but “what goes around comes around goes around etc”. For instance a 260 day calendar would seem to make no sense unless one considers that the gestation period is 260 days. Thus if a woman conceived on Tzolkin 10 she could expect the birth on Tzolkin 10, As this was synchronized with the Haab (365 day calendar) no calculation was needed.

This imprinting is canabilastic in nature, like the zombie, it want’s to eat your brains. It is the Ayn Rand Beast. “There is a slavering beast devouring the mind of man. You know that no matter how eloquent the words, how impecable the logic, how irrefutable the facts, it can’t be reached, not in any way. There is no mind there” – Ayn Rand I call it the abyss, IE all words fall into the abyss. I like beast better Consider the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland, perhaps the greatest treatise on philosophy ever written. When queried on which road to take, he responded “Well, if you don’t know where you’re going it doesn’t much matter which path you take” And this is, in fact, where we are when trying to figure something out. WE DON’T KNOW WHERE WE’RE GOING. To start with the answer and work our way back to the question is insane. Can’t anyone else see that?

Next>Consider

Inclusional DataMining pTruthnTruth Multiplism Thoughts Idiots RT/CTSurvival PairODis Mach

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Top Down/Bottom Up”

  1. we experience the unfolding-in-the-now continuum without having to divide the world into ‘local things’. but our habit is to build forward-in-time constructions in word-concept mode; i.e. in terms of ‘what things do’.

    as mcluhan observed, it matters little ‘what things do’ (whether machines make ‘Cadillacs’ or ‘cornflakes’), what matters is ‘spatial-relational transformation’, … how our relations with one another and with our living space are transforming. that’s what shapes our experiencing.

    ‘Creationists’ are not about to trade out ‘God’s providence’ for Darwinist ‘Random chance variations’ as the ‘evolutionary sourcing force’ (i can understand that, NOT because i believe in ‘Creationism’, but because i prefer Emerson and Lamarck’s models to Darwin’s). in any case, arguing about which model best reconstructs reality is not the point. as McLuhan says, what matters is how our ‘acting out’ the models transforms our relations with one another and with our living space.

    today, we declare that our sovereign state is ‘independent’ and thus entitled to its own locally originating, internal process-driven and internal purpose directed behaviour. as law historians note, this is a secularized theological concept. we have 195 of these sovereign states in the world that assume that there is a god-like-local-fountain of first-cause creativity in the tabernacle called ‘central government’, and we wave flags and sing anthems to the implicit power in this tabernacle and declare our belief in the ‘independence’ of these states. that really does play hell on us all, because THE REALITY WE EXPERIENCE (which doesn’t depend on word-concepts) IS that we all share inclusion in an interdependent world. (local word-concept things are ‘idealisation’)

    ‘theories about ‘thinking’’, ‘forms of logic’, ‘parts of the brain’, are down inside this generic forward constructivist model in terms of ‘what things do’. they are down in the guts of it, in the machinery that allegedly ‘makes men do the things they do’ (the shape of the spatial opening of possibility-to-do that we experience [like the wildgeese] is not considered). these ‘thinking’ models are already inside a model of the world that assumes the local, independent existence of the human organism, notionally equipped with his own locally originating, internal process-driven and internal knowledge and purpose-directed behaviour. i.e. such models are highly idealised and thus constrained.

    arguing about our human manner of thinking is like arguing about the driving mechanism for hurricanes. no matter how good such a model is (as a model for us to believe in and live by), it cannot overcome the fact that anything that we attribute to a hurricane or a man is ‘secondary’ to the ‘first cause’ that resides in and thus derives from the flow-field. the convection cell or any emergent dynamic form is secondary to the tensions that arise in the resonant-energy-changed space-continuum. the ‘field’ is the evolutionary sourcing force (‘first cause’) that not only inhabits but creates the hurricane and/or human (N.B. concepts associated with flow and spatial relations have no dependency on ‘locally existing material systems’). exploring how different humans ‘think differently’ is an interesting exercise, but it constrains us to think in the constrained, over-simplistic modeling paradigm terms of ‘what things do’, which is non-sense in a fluid-dynamic world.

    if we want to improve the quality of the world according to our experience, then we have to restore our experience to its natural primacy over intellectual constructions based on ‘what things do’. we have to stop trying to deliberately construct the world we desire, an approach that has us desensitize ourselves to our experiencing of the unfolding now, and focus instead on our ‘local’ mission, vision, strategies, goals and objectives, which rest dependently upon our preferred models for ‘what things do’.

    such constructivist models based on ‘what things do’ are very useful for ‘getting things done’, but what they sacrifice is ‘how our relations with one another and our living space are transformed’. how humans ‘think’ and how our brain lobes and neural networks ‘function’ is part of this constrained, forward-in-time, constructivist modeling paradigm, that is terms of ‘what we do’. the oasis in the desert and/or the fertile valley can have a remarkable orchestrating influence on individual and collective human behaviour that is ‘upstream’ from the processes going on inside the skull of humans. such influence is like stormy seas and skies to the sailboater, he derives his form, his power-drive and his steerage from them, there is no such things as ‘first cause’ from a ‘local’ source (within man). the resonant energy charged space is the ultimate ‘first cause’; it inhabits and creates the dynamic forms called ‘humans’ and/or ‘human brains’.

  2. ellocogringo Says:

    Hello, Mr Ted 03/25/10 Priorities
    As usual I find difficulty finding a point upon which I can pick a fight. No joy. However, while I will cheerfully concede your right to set priorities, I will continue to maintain mine. While in the greater scheme of things I recognize that my opinions on how the mind works (and the general topic itself) carry about as much weight as a fart in a hurricane, It’s important to me, and after all, I’m all that matters to me.

    It is, in fact, this failure to understand priorities that I am rebelling against, the failure of mankind in general to understand priorities, man’s place in the universe. IE The big hoochie koochie (spacial forcing) is what matters, not my opinion of it (local forcing) On a pico scale, this leads to the failure of Chief Dan George, Erwin Schrodinger and Albert Einstein to recognize that they were caught in a brain fart, not recognizing that two possibilities were automatically excluded. (actually Chief Dan George didn’t have this brain fart) On a micro scale, this failure to understand man’s place in the universe and act on the delusional belief that local forcing supercedes spacial forcing has led to a situation in which we have fouled our environment to the point that man will become extinct, leading to the probably that in the future, el Loco Gringo won’t have any Stanford psychologists to make fun of, and that would make him very sad. Now that’s important! (We have shit in our own nest)

    There are two things involved here; perception and logic. Western civilazition uses Local forcing and Aristotalean logic. The aboriginal worldview which is itself a model, or a dogma, yields a more accurate view of man’s place in the universe.
    “A deep reverence for Mother Earth lies at the heart of the beliefs and traditions of the native nations of North America. Whether for inhabitants of lush, fertile lands, arid desert, ocean shores, or the harsh subartic, nature is the peoples’ bountiful provider, and earth the sustainer of life. As seen in the lifeways of ancient hunter-gatherers, trappers, and fishers through centuries of adaptation to new circumstances, homelands, and techniques, a profound respect for earth’s fellow-creatures – both philosophical and practical – permeates Native American society.” – Searching Eagle
    The Gaia world view also has merit
    “The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis.”– Wikipedia
    In fact, they are identical concepts, the aboriginal is more bottom up, the gaia more top down.

    Constructivist, constructionist, scientific method, tao, etc are all squishy words. “The word is not the concept” I prefer my own words, top down and bottom up. That way “A word means what I intend it to mean, no more, no less” – Mad Hatter-Alice in wonderland.

    Top down> perceptual> time domain, Euclician Geometry; a subset of reality. logic> Aristotalean, serial, binary A or B
    Bottom up> Perceptual> frequency domain, vectors, a subset? Of reality. Logic> Boolean (A or B or A and B or neither)

    These 4 processes are synchronous in nature unless hijacked by imprinting, religion or education.

    And so, which is TRUTH? Should we “go with the flow” or “piss into the wind”? Generally unconsidered in the West (the brain fart) is the possibilities of both or neither. IE “piss with the wind”, work with nature, don’t try to control it. This is truth (bottom up), unique for each individual, as contrasted with TRUTH (top down), a herd mentality that is destroying our planet. It’s all about balance. The needs of the individual vs the needs of society. OPL walt

  3. What actually becomes ‘extinct’?

    The sovereign state of Sitnalta was a powerful and well-organised state. It was run by a succession of wise leaders, it had a persistently healthy economy and its citizens enjoyed prosperity and abundance. At the very root-source of this ‘success story’ was the industriousness, intelligence, and also ‘wisdom’ of human beings.

    The disappearance of Sitnalta from the history of human civilizations was entirely unexpected. The Sitnaltians were very intelligent people that had lived through drought and deluge, global warming and global cooling.

    Their achilles heel was that they were terrestrials and Sitnalta was, beyond the collection of humans featured in their story, the island of rock, soil, flora and fauna protruding above the level of the oceans on the planet and when it ‘went under’, they ‘went under with it’.

    Apparently, it was not just their intelligence that contributed to their ‘success’ as a civilization, the Sitnaltian humans were part of an interdependent network of relationships; plants, nematodes (worms), arthropods (beatles), protozoa, bacteria, funghi, animals, organic matter that some call the ‘the soil food web’, which are in turn interdependent with the fresh water cycle, oxygen/CO2 cycles and solar irradiance (thermal energy and photosynthesis) cycles.

    However, humans wrote the history books and they didn’t want to clutter them with all these interdependent relations, so they portrayed ‘man’ as an ‘independent system’ with his own ‘locally originating (internal process-driven and internal intelligence and purpose directed) behaviour. After all, man invented language and he designed it so that he could, by defining and labelling things as he chose, affirm their ‘independent’ existence if he chose to do so, which he in fact did. So in a world of flux where ‘field’ is the ‘spatial-sourcing force’ or ‘first cause’ and precedes matter, … man used language to synthetically infuse ‘first cause’ inside of local material systems he called ‘organisms’ (continuously innovating dynamic forms in the ‘field’ view of nature). Thus, his stories of sovereign states ‘stops’ at the end of the backwards-tracked causal path of dynamics that are seen to spring forth from the local seat of intelligence in the ‘brain’ of man.

    This ‘pseudo-first cause’ that man purports to reside in the local interior of himself is a good story-line that enables us in turn, as historians of ourselves, to construct the pseudo-reality of the ‘sovereign state’ and the ‘human civilization’, as if it were a self-starting ‘system-in-its-own-right’ rather than being inextricably included in the ceaselessly innovative flow of nature.

    The philosopher-mathematician Henri Poincaré notes that some humans confuse this idealisation for ‘reality’ and others accept that it is a pragmatic use of idealisation which is in no way ‘reality’. He calls the former ‘Cantorian realists’ and the latter ‘pragmatist idealists’. In any case, it is NOT REALISTIC to tell the story of Sitnalta by imputing local independent existence to humans and it is NOT REALISTIC to impute to humans their own locally originating, internal-process-driven and internal intelligence and purpose-directed behaviours. Sure, this makes them into notional local self-contained ‘automotons’ so that we can build stories on top of ‘what they do’ and get rid of the clutter of networked spatial-relational interdependencies and the ‘reality’ that everything is in flux and that first cause derives from spatial-relational fields that are everywhere-at-the-same-time. This kind of over-simplified man-as-first-cause-agent (thanks to his local internal ‘intelligence’) is like his story of the local existence of the sovereign state, an imaginary line-bounded local system notionally equipped with its own locally originating internal drive and direction. It works so long as the participants in the story who are writing their own story-line, believe in it. But for the Sinaltans, it was hard to continue to believe in the story when the land sunk beneath the ocean and the interdependent network of relationships; plants, nematodes (worms), arthropods (beatles), protozoa, bacteria, funghi, animals, organic matter that some call the ‘the soil food web’, which are in turn interdependent with the fresh water cycle, oxygen/CO2 cycles and solar irradiance (thermal energy and photosynthesis) cycles, …. that man is inextricably woven into, … is dispersed as fish-food and reincarnated into marine forms.

    The beauty of the language that man invented to tell his own story is that its words are assembled as montages on a background of ‘silence’. Thus, one can tell a story about a human civilization starting with human beings already in place without having to deal with a continually transforming spatial field-that-is-everywhere-at-the-same-time continuum, but can pick out visual features within the unfolding flow, absolutize them with language and present them as if they were first cause agents with their own internal process-driven and internal intelligence and purpose directed behaviour.

    Man, as man depicts man, is a word-based story. ‘In the beginning’ (wherever one wants to break into a continuing cycle of innovation), there was only the flow of nature with its nature-flow-features which include ‘man’. Man invented language to tell stories about himself. It is not that man is going to become extinct, but rather the story of man as told by man that is going to become extinct. It looks like man is still going to be around while his story becomes extinct. It is sure as hell under a lot of stress right now, due to the god-like pride of ‘human intelligence-directed’ local first cause (local-forcing) that he has written into it which cuts off at the pass any acknowledgment of ‘reality’ aka ‘spatial-forcing primacy’.

  4. ellocogringo Says:

    Mr Ted 03/25/10 SitnaltaAtlantis
    Well, OK, I’ll take it at face value. I’m not going to address it directly, it’s a bit too exoteric for me, this is a well trod trail. There is nothing in here that is not adequately covered by my “It ain’t real” IE local forcing ain’t real. Anything else is just “dancing with the truth”. Note that you are only speaking of occidental man, oriental man has ihis own “it ain’t real”, which is opposite, as do many other groups and even individuals. I would have used different words, it’s not pride, dumb maybe? Nor absolutize but quantified. (you should be familiar with the term, it’s not squishy) but that’s quibbling.

    Let’s try a different path.

    Position 1) My top down position on the big hoochie koochie is that it is vibrational in nature, has a rotational aspect (with a beat of 8) and is negentropic. That much I have data on, anything else is conjecture (on my part).

    Position 2) Working the logic the other way (bottom up) the universe is negentropic, has a rotational aspect and is vibrational in nature. I also have data on that. (rat brain robot, blue brain, life happens etc.)

    “OMG!” You may say “walt’s slipped his trolly, he’s repeating himself, I’ve infected his thought patterns. First thing you know he’ll start talking about hurricanes, sailboats and motorboats” (Shit, I just did, after talking to you a page just doesn’t seem complete unless there’s a reference to a hurricane in it.)

    No, I’m not being redundant, the two positions are consistent but not equal. The unaddressed question in the GEO talk you sent. “is space making electrons or are electrons making space” Setting aside for the moment that the words “space” and “electrons” are squishy, the answer is YES. It’s the brain fart. You’ve got the part of space making electrons resolved, at least to my satisfaction. Electrons making space has yet to be resolved (that I am aware of)

    You mentioned Poincare, RAW has a comprehensive summary of the various philosophies on the matter. I’ll send you an ebook if you’re interested.

    Back to the central theme. My opinion, pure conjecture, is that the development/creation/evolution of man, or something very like him, would seem to be inevitable, depending on the initial conditions of the big hoochie koochie. I don’t know what variables would be involved, or if the term variable is even applicable in this context. If all the data were known, everything would be predictable, (another squishy word, considering time is an artifact, but you gotta play the hand you’re dealt)

    So Sinalta is sinking into the sea as we speak, as is Atlantis. The time is “now”

    This should be fun

    walt

  5. walt,

    when i think i am losing my ability to tune into what you are intending, i transpose some of the metaphors to see if the attunement is re-established in a new way. ok, sitnalta was not very productive.

    i am always complaining about the use of words in a ‘hard sense’ because it fogs up the dialogue for me. that is, i think our (western civilization’s) mistake is in thinking we have a common understanding when we use a word like ‘man’; e.g. as in your statement;

    “Back to the central theme. My opinion, pure conjecture, is that the development/creation/evolution of man, or something very like him, would seem to be inevitable, depending on the initial conditions of the big hoochie koochie.”

    put yourself in my shoes, knowing what my view is, that man did not evolve, that the universe is a resonant-energy-charged-medium and that this ‘entirety’ is in a continual spatial-relational transformation and whatever we want to call our observing/experiencing selves, are in it.

    i must admit i like emerson’s ‘minimalist’ description of the dynamic forms within the transforming/evolving universe; i.e. dynamic forms in the resonant-energy-charged continuum animated and created by the ‘universal spirit’ of nature (the first-cause mover-and-shaker, ‘the wave-field’ (imagine ‘the wave-field’ in electric blue holographic letters, i don’t know how to trick wordpress to get it in there like that).

    in this case, ‘man’, the ‘dynamic form’, did not ‘evolve’. ‘man’ is created by ‘whatever we want to call our observing/experiencing selves’. man is our ‘invention’, whomever we are, but we seem to be something more than what we invent and discuss. schroedinger worked on this one with his ‘one-mind’ view, which plays the same role as emerson’s ‘universal spirit’.

    ok, i am playing around with the ‘ineffable’ flow, the tao, etc. in which we are dynamic forms so that the medium we gather within which is our primary essence is ineffable. what we can talk about is ‘secondary’. thus any version of ‘man’ that we can talk about is secondary to the ?—-?, the ineffable essence inhabiting the gathering of energy that is ‘really’ ‘man’.

    i am not suggesting we eliminate ‘man’, our invention that we habitually talk about as if we knew what we were talking about. but when we start building propositional structures using ‘man’ such as ‘the development/creation/evolution of man, or something very like him, would seem to be inevitable’, we are ‘using time language’ and the sort of understanding that i would like to pursue gets trampled over and left behind in the dust.

    the only way we can speak of the ‘initial conditions of the big hoochie koochie’. is by ‘objectifying’ the ‘big hoochie koochie’ and imagining that it ‘is different now’ than ‘it was then’ (time language). what if the big hoochie koochie is ‘everything’. then there is no way to ‘get outside it’ to ‘objectify it’.

    so, perhaps i made a mistake in commenting on ‘this page’ on your website because this kind of exploration may not be where you want to take things on this page, and i fully accept that.

    as mentioned elsewhere, my interest is in helping to draw awareness to incoherence/dysfunction in the world dynamic arising from understanding that puts local-forcing in an unnatural primacy (my opinion) over spatial forcing. i don’t need to speak of ‘the evolution of man’ in order to do this. i can leave ‘whoever we are’ to conjecture such as whether our mind is of the universal spirit and our physical material body is entirely secondary and is gathered up by our spirit and falls away from our spirit.

    clearly, the popular understanding is that the mind and the body are one bundle and when the body falls into dust. the mind also falls into dust. in my view schroedinger and emerson have a better understanding, and it is one that my intuition leads me to with or without them.

    perhaps, while we may be ‘on the same train together’ (i can’t find a non-time-based way to say this), my preference is to ‘get off at an earlier stop’ without staying on to go the distance to ‘hoochie kootchie landing’. e.g. my more modest goal would be to help expose darwinism as nonsense; i.e. so that it would be overtly taught in schools that it was non-sense, and that ‘creationism’ was not the alternative, the more ‘coherent’ alternative being something more akin to the evolutionary views of lamarck and emerson.

    ted

  6. Ah!!! at last I found what I was looking for. Somtimes it takes so much effort to find even tiny useful piece of information.

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: