PRELUDE: The Parable of the Heron and the Beaver

Dr. Heron and Dr. Beaver were dialogically inseparable, if you will.  That is, Dr. Beaver loved to provoke Dr. Heron’s short, and relatively benign, temper, especially about his Religion Department’s naivete.  Pre-natally naive, perhaps, according to Beaver’s Communication Design Department.  That’s just the way they, collectively, saw it, and heard it, for that matter.  Meanwhile, the otherwise unapproachable and silent, downright reclusive and perhaps even forbidding, Dr. Heron would listen, occasionally too surprised to respond, sometimes with a confused and stressed, “Shawk!”, but always with profoundly wise gaze, of course.  How could we have a parable without an allegorical “wise gaze?”

While Dr. Heron perched and peered with unusual fascination, tending to be a bit myopic (adroitly, but profoundly, denied), Dr. Beaver swam by, near enough to be noticed, in fact, rather hell-bent on distraction, in a playfully purposive way.

Truth be told, which does erupt occasionally, Dr. Beaver, on this morning, ever so slightly, slowly, VEXED Dr. Heron.  Beaver invited Heron’s play, but Heron simply was not known as a playful kind of girl.  Upon hearing this, Beaver suggested they swim together.  While Dr. Heron preferred the wind’s freedom, she gracefully bowed, then lead the way, and Beaver stopped splashing and wriggling about so…. “I don’t know, so ‘vigorously,’ I think.” (Oops, did I say that out loud?  Can they hear me?)

Swiftly amused by Heron’s bi-polar control issues, Beaver paried with the synonym choice, “heartily, as well as ‘vigorously’.”

“Quite so.” Heron parsimoniously admitted, immediately grasping the wisdom of Beaver’s inviting option.

As they swam their leisurely way through the cool green mossy pond’s edge, paddling, each in His and Her way, toward the gently rippling, blue-gleaming, center, Heron remembered the beautiful dam, now behind, invisible.

“Yes, my best so far, but it wants color to be the best.”

Dr. Heron was flustered.  How did Beaver know what she was thinking?  And, what an extraordinary idea!  Adding color would be wrong, she was sure a dam had no business wanting to become a rainbow.

“Oh, no, that would just make it tacky.” replied Beaver, delighted with Heron’s naive misunderstanding.  “Beavers have a powerful Developer’s Cooperative Guild. Very high Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) architectural integrity standards, as they officiously say.  Now, visual color, that would be more Dr. Chameleon’s Department, over in Arts and Humanities.  Perhaps you are too young to recognize the difference from the Communications Design Department.  They are visual color, but our specialty is auditory color.

“Hmmm.  I am surprised.”

“Yes, I hear that.”

“You mean, you understand that?”

“Yes, both. OK, now you want to play me, I see.”

“No, not that, please!  Though, I would appreciate seeing why you use “hear” synonymously with “understand.”

“If you were not so blind, it would probably hit you right between the eyes.”

Dr. Heron contemplated that for an extrava-gently long time, in Beaver’s impatient-to-play moment.  Perhaps an iteration would remove them from their quagmire, he thought, guiding Dr. Heron around a lily pad patch, where Dr. Swan was gracefully resting, waiting.  For what, she never said.  Always just “Waiting.” in reply to his too frequent interruption.

Seeing a butterfly flexing her silky wings atop the closest lily, Dr. Beaver asked Dr. Heron why she never sang in round octaves.

“You mean color octaves.”

“Yes, color octaves are round.”

“That cannot be right.”

“It can, when you realize it deeply enough.”

“But, color lacks shape.  And why is this dialogue backward?”

“Not long ago you didn’t think color had sound either, but I hear you already using the way we see things over in the Communications Department.”

“I can envision color as metaphor for singing scales.”

“Oh yes, scales are linear color, not round color, like a wheel, you see?  Those are two symmetrical frequencies. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Positive and Negative. Before and After. Or, official labels, in Design circles, you know, are ‘Yang Color’and ‘Yin Color’.”

“So which is which?”

“No, no, which is never-‘which’, and vice-versa.”

“You have a backward way of confusing things, considering you are supposed to be the Communications Design Department.”

“Yes, well Confusion is our Special Field Theory you know; its an important part of Communications, or not.  Most Herons don’t sync like you do.”

“Why is that?” asked Dr. Heron, scrambling how to respond with freeing her blindness.

“They know Confusion is too soft for building dams.  It is, of course.  But, while I soften to your touch, I have elder cousins rambunctiously and fibrously scaled.”

“Really Dr. Beaver, please pick an octave and stick with it!”

“I do!” protested Beaver, without influence.

“It is difficult to synchronize when you insist on frolicking so! While I am blissfully silent myself, with considerably more normal events, I have many younger cousins singing multiple octaves and patterns.  Further, while I appreciate the beauty and extreme generosity of our historic Design scales, it would be wrong to reduce them to mere sticks for resplendent dams.”

“Do it all the time. Sticks are under-valued for scales, as are Alligator or Armadillo scales.”

“And these ‘low-valued scales’ don’t mind being trapped, denied their value-freedom? I ask because I cannot see. They are too low for eyes, or ears, and thinking.”

“If you can’t hear my dams’ goodness, then how do you see its full beauty?”

Beaver stopped paddling as they emerged with the sun-drenched pond. A change of mood inspired a new, and old, direction.

“I know! What if you and your tribe of cousins gently built your nests into my damn? Then we could all hear and see its transformation. I’m sure we can connect your round octaves to our columned scales!”

Drs. Heron and Beaver have made their rapturous home together ever since.

OVERTURE

“I call heaven and earth to record that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life.”  Deuteronomy 30:19

“To be, or not to be, that is the question.  Hamlet, William Shakespeare

“If we paid more attention to self-adjustment and obedience, and less attention to petulant meddling with the wheels of its going, we should find living immensely worth while and the universe the best imaginable friend.” Magic Wells: Sermons…, Rev. Julian Clifford Jaynes

Sirius Meets Janus

Each bloody boundary includes a risky door,

ajar,

toward Sirius’ dialogue,

waiting impatiently, vigorously, frequently rhythmically tapping her raw foot,

protectively vulnerable cloaked arms crossed,

terrified shoulders hunched,

brightly glaring at your door,

hoping you will “Finally!” open it:

Impulsively, not from lack of forethought,

Joyfully, anticipating her warm grace-filled,

yet sometimes too loud!

body hug.

Heron’s Religion Department 101 Lecture:

Think of Gaia as being one frequency-based Whole System, Rational.  Within that metric context, the human species’ body is, with RE mature adult’s, composed of proportionally = frequency levels.  Equal to Gaia’s that is, as understood from a globally accessible-as-normative wisdom-base.  When these frequency levels exceed P=NP = (Yang e = Yin e), then our shared historical-cultural global community awareness, defined as “T” that + = (-), and 1 = pi/0, is the oldest and wisest metric system based assumption, as evinced Universally, and in more exemplary analogically-rooted documents captured in B. Fuller, W. Thurston (Special Case: “Rational System”), then Euler’s e = function, inclusive of Temporal, then Muhammed, Origen, Remi, M. Maier, St. Anthony of Padua, Confucius, and most certainly Pythagoras.  The original relationship (“L”) = Yang-e divided Octavely by Yin-e, with 0/0 dissonance based “f“.

Tom Atlee, Joanna Macy, the NCDD, William Thurston, Thomas Kuhn, Buckminster Fuller, Robert Norton and perhaps even Julian Jaynes, in his own BiCameral way, invite us to join them in adopting the hypothesis that our globally inter-communicated “power-from-within” capacity is now increasing to an edge-frequency level of dissonance, with new World Wide Web capacity to both measure and adjust it.  Their wisely-shared underlying STEM-based hypothesis is, unless I am mistaken, of course, that Yang-e divides rationally when Yin-e frequencies  are evenly divided by Yang-e, and vice-versa (i.e., transposition has Information Value), Universal Infinite System Assumption = 0 = [West-Hemisphere = (1/”pi”=e)] +  [East-Hemisphere = (“pi”/e) historically/culturally equivalent to “We’re all in this together.”].

Beaver’s  “Body Hug” Dream:

Come on, all of us in the Communications Systems Design Cooperative Guild have been agreeing to that CQI Standard since, well, since as far back as we have had a Guild, even back through our richly diverse, and diversely logos-ed artifacts…like “sticks,” for example.  But, that reminds me of a story….

Scene 1: Aries Rams Forth

Dedication

First, to my four Transition Generation kids, by adoption, my Heart-Path Partner Jerome Dye, and, by intentional extension, Kerry Dillenbeck, Jeremy Read, Dale Martin, Robert Fournier, Sue DeShaine, Catherine Hogan, and, most magnificently, Kathleen Brennan.

As you know, my health is not what anyone would put in the caegory of “Excellent!”  Some days, it only feels “fair.”  I started out to write down all the things I really should have told Dillen and Spencer, now 18, and 16, rspectively.  That point of origin led me to this Re-Analogic Transposition Theory.  More importantly, along the way, I was repatedly reminded that, not only are well all in this together, but that each of you, in your own diverse journey, has taught me how to understand my own.  You have richly endowed my Universe with your combined wisdom, our combined “power-with’within” as my Exegetical Tribe, if you will.  Our love is all.

Secondly, but penultimately, not at all marginally, my thanks to Joanna Macy, Tom Atlee, Robert Norton, Buckminster Fuller, Thomas Kuhn (and his Problem of Incommensurability), Deacon Peacock (Supervenience Theory), Willem Drees, Julian Jaynes, and William Thurston, whose journeys on “Spaceship Earth” have overlapped my own, my profound respect. You have each deeply graced my life.

Finally, to my local Man/Sha emergent tribe, please accept this invitation to explore this PermaCulture value economy together.  If you can find your Bridge to the rainbow’s Boson, I hope we can cooperatively reach back and, combining our wisdom-from-within, patch up my Jerry-mandered Opus.

GD, Sept. 21, 2013

Scene 2: Beta-Site Beginnings

One day, as twilight approached, Dr. Beaver, exhausted, flipped over on the pond’s surface, slapped his contented tail a few times, and drifted into the cool shadow of Dr. Heron’s magnificent nest.

 Scene 3: Calculated Conniving

Beaver: I do love living here below Dr. Heron, but I wish she wouldn’t shable so with Dr. Penny Peacock, Science Department, when she visits.

Scene 4: De-Minored Differentiated “Self”-Analogos

This probably came to mind due to a relatively raucous event earlier that day, when Peacock had not only come for a drink, as per usual, but, knowing Heron would be off fishing elsewhere, and feeling a bit drowsy herself, she had the audacity to climb into Heron’s family-sized nest, and promptly fall asleep!

When Heron returned, her “Shawk!” security alarm went off, disrupting Beaver’s otherwise blissful day in self-made pond paradise.

 Scene 5: Essentially Beaver-Space

Beaver: I do wish you two would learn to play together more effectively.  This constant bickering about which is more important, the beauty of “Diversity” or the goodness of “Integrity” reminds me of that first time you saw an elephant.

Peacock: Not an elephant, a moose, everyone knows that horses do not have antlers.

Heron: Elephants do not have antlers either, for that matter, they have tusks.  But, that must have been a horse.  It ran much too gracefully, and fast, to be an elephant.

Beaver:  Why don’t we just agree to call that moment a “Moorse.”

Heron: Unsatisfactory, too eisegetical, and you ae confusing language with reality.  What, by the way, is a Moorse?  Never head of it, so I’m sure I’ve not seen one.

Peacock:  How would you know if you had seen one or not, if you didn’t know there was such a thing to see?

Beaver: I know there is such a thing. The Moorse was in our Dpartment’s original programming language.

Heron: You are, again, confusing language with reality.  What do you folks teach over there in Communications, besides your silly Confusion Special Case Theory?  Anything?

 Scene 6: Fairness Frequencies

Once again, energetic Beaver had stirred up a frequency Charybdis in the otherwise eternally sedate Heron nature.  While this did not really amuse the Beaver, he also recognized a good story to tell his cousins, so ambivalence prevailed.

Scene 7: Global Goodness! Gawk!

Heron: Furthermore, why are you distracting us from noticing that Dr. Peacock has settled into the Religious Department’s nest?  If you Communication Design people don’t  watch out, next thing you know, this will go global, like a river virus, infesting everyone of your beautiful dams! You know, you should sound the alarm with me rather than complain of the occasional “Shawk!”

Peacock: You’re over-responding, or under-responding….

I could figure that out if Beaver would build me a bridge to a hypothesis….

Anyway, or always, your whole Department has been acting much too flightly lately! Why can’t you just calm down and land somewhere?  Or anywhere?

Key of C/Scene 8 Confluence Vector: Re-Notification Octave

Realizing there could be no peace until he built the damned bridge, Beaver spent an entire moment of a gorgeous, benignly mild, early autumn afternoon imagining a bridge from Heron’s nest to…where, exactly?

Beaver’s inner vision was often more acute than his outer vision.  He had head that Peacocks roosted on trees but it was difficult to gaze upward.  He wasn’t well-designed for star-gazing, except, of course, when he drifted on his back.  In short, he was not of a mind to traipse through the risky forest, looking for Dr. Peacock’s specific Tree-house.

Peacock: My Tree is the rainbow, obviously.  Even you can’t miss it.

Heron: Truer words were never analogged. Right in the middle of the pond, surounded by a perfectly and naturally designed, organically crafted, forest, your rainbow tree is big on diversity, but jarringly tacky as hell, really shallow values, if I say so myself.

Beaver: Of course you said so yourself, we can’t have Peacock delivering your lines!  What frequency of play would that be?

Heron: Perhaps a less disjointed frequency?

Beaver: Was that supposed to provoke an argument?  Won’t work.  No boundaries would indeed create less joints, but you would lose the play function.  Elephants and horses and Mooses could all become Mice or Moorses, or even Bears.  There would be no Truth in it at all, so no beauty, no goodness.  I do not like it, Heron I AM that “I AM”!

Peacock: You just called yourself “Heron.”

Beaver:  Just an illustration of my central vector.  Didn’t mean to allegorate your identity stress.

Peacock: You mean cause identity stress?

Beaver: I mean, the Science Department is to the Religion Department as the rainbow is to shades of earth-tone.

Heron: Did you just say something that all three of us might understand?

Beaver: Hopefully.  But, I still think it would be prudent to actually design your Atlantus Bridge.

Key of D: Re-Cognition

To that end,

Beaver: Once upon a time there was a fair-haired boy, (or is she a girl?) riding furiously away from his prior appointment, late for school, as was a provoking habit of hers, or his.

As s/he struggled up the last hill, he could just redolantly see the ripe anciently-rooted, and distressingly “wormy,” apple tree ahead, when he unexpectedly lost power.  The loss of a too well-worn bicycle-chain threw him into an over-dramatic rage at the indignity and slow pedestrianism of continuing barefoot, already hopelessly late.

For something.

Although as he walked on toward his fruit-filled favored landmark, he couldn’t quite recall where he was going, but, in that he was in such a great rush he really should remember, as it must be truly important.

And yet, the beauty, the fertile goodness, the cool leisurely value of her languid limpid limbs called to him, as did an enormous Raven, swooping by.

Bowing to his elder, he thanked her, in advance, for her medicine.  With a gentle shake, the tree released the nearest wax-red orb to the ground, at the boy’s still un-shod foot. (Did he take off his shoes and socks?  I can’t believe that happened without my re-membering.)

He waxed the apple’s skin with relish and anticipation.

The Tree responded with a gentle smile at such gratitude from this heroic man-spirit, so courageously approached.  If a bit naive, this was graciously forgiven.  He was so unimaginably short-seasoned! Not naive really; just infantly young. His bold, yet respectful, approach spoke well for his own readiness to transition from riding, to test his wings.

The first mouth-lubricating juice was the best, as always, His swollen throat lavished his way around the apple, to the back, a little brown-scabbed, but certainly not what he would think of as “warmy,” or seriously wrong.  Battle scars, nobly earned, gracefully, discreetly, worn.”

Act: Key of E: Re-Search

“Willem, wake up this instant” exclaimed Dr. Calculus, Willem’s STEM Research Director. “Science Class is not for sleeping, as you well know; you have confused STEM with Dr. Wild’s Supervenience Department, is my hypothesis.”

“Not, confused” said Willem evenly, intent on his message, but calmly astride the twilight-hidden ancient taproot that had tripped more hurried travelers.  Feeling profoundly centered at this moment, “Thank you for your urgent concern, Dr….”

Calculus: Not I-AM.

Willem: Perhaps you meant to say, “Not at all?”

Calculus: Same difference, as you might realize had you been a bit further along your journey.  Not at all a judgment, just hypothesis in this moment.  That’s all we do here.  Remember?  Again, com-Passion is best in the Right Hemisphere.

Willem: That seems Right.

Calculus: Precisely so. Not I-AM is to the Yin School as “I AM” is to the Yang School. Very good, and simply sighted, I heuristically suppose. So, [Dr. C Disconcertingly, and recursively whirls, to include all Willem’s colleagues] Willem, we await your STEM Athena Bridge-Building Project Report.”

Act: Key of F: Re-Flex

Willem: As you stand in the Universally Central Vector, the Rainbow arcs above a vast vista out of sight, over to the horizen, on the Other side of now.

According to my map, if I understand it correctly, the integrity of this span is rooted through the supervenient confluence path, between our shared Right Hemisphere (as per Jaynes BiCameral Theory) the land of Diversely Traditioned Culture, and our Left-Brained Research Satellite.

This Bridge is composed of optimized, organically equilibrious frequencies.  Frequencies of Right to Left are square-root value system based in what Julian Jaynes labelled the Universal “aptic” infrastructure, where I AM (“1”) and Not “I-AM” (“0”) are balanced, therefore metrically equal, or equivalent. In short, “BiCameral Values” = “Dia-Cameral Equivalency Proportions”.  By remarkable contrast, spin frequencies along the path from Left to Right vary diversely, but following organically-rooted rhythm and octave measurement structure so that their average integrity is +/(-) balance in each moment, or e “temporal frequency,” if you prefer (as per the Euler Translation).

Travel from Left to Right is restricted.  That is, receptors on the Right will open to the Boundary if requests for entry are confluent with current Exegesis.  When the fit between the Eisegetical proposal from the Left is allegorically synonymous with Right’s Tradition Culture (as in Yin’s Exegetical Code Program), then the Boundary between Left and Right is lifted, synaptically–instantly, or, speaking more precisely, “moment”airily.

Dr. C: Well done, Willem.  Now, please tell us how this appears from our Research Satellite’s perspective, in the Left, or “Western” Hemisphere.  I understand there are numerous design complaints running the full spectrum, from transparency issues, through control, appeals for equal representation, higher peace with justice values, not to mention the rights of diversely-valued species, accessibility, power differentials, the byzantine attempts to go around this synaptic path through diversely evolved paradigms and Traditions with conflicting frequency values, etc., etc., etc….

How does the Right-Brained Exegesis justify what appears to the Left-Brained Eisegesis as a justly provoked revolution in response to tyranny?  After all, just because Yin is older and already in the Species majority, by what integrity does she “pull rank” on the Eisegetical Language, which, as you seem to understand, includes our own revered STEM Curriculum?

Willem: Yes, well, this brings us to Professor Ascent’s Supervenience Theory, alive and well in the Right/Eastern Domain.  According to Dr. A’s Theory, as supported by Buckminster Fuller’s Synergetics, perhaps, although who really can say?, the crux of the problem is the Left-Brained Satellite Hemisphere’s translation error, confusing “Community” with “Communication.” In metric terms, they have transposed their value equivalencies.  That is, yes, spatial frequencies and temporal frequencies are both rooted in the “+/0” metric Assumption, but that does not mean that + = 0 or that 0 = +.  In short, plus and minus refer to communication frequencies, while their normatively associated spatial equivalents, or “communities” have zero-scaled taproots.  At the same time, while “0” necessarily precedes “1” analogically, using the “community” spatial-metric system.  We must retain its logical distinction from the +/(-) temporally functional “communication” metric system–which operate at synaptic frequencies, relative to the higher, and deeper, aptic frequencies.

Just because both frequencies can, ideally, stat with 0 = (-), with a PermaCultural Universal assumption of P=NP (Polynomial = Non-Polynomial confluence/stress frequencies, it is still an assumption of equilibrium that appeals to our Species because of its goodness (Dr. A’s specialization) and beauty (Dr. C’s specialization), the heuristically assumed precursors of Truth.

Dr. Calculus: Good job.  From this time forward, you shall be known as Dr. Billem, or “Dr. B,”, for proportional purposes, of course.

However, there is richer potential here, Dr. B. You are using Fullerian Synergetic values which, as you well know from your Math History Class, have not been well-received among our Eisegetical Satellite populations.  I suggest taking a lesson from Dr. Peacock’s Supervenience Theory, and think back further to the more skilled translation work of Charles Darwin.  There are two treasures here for us, I think.

First, Darwin had the wisdom to stay away from professing to understand either the origins or the analogical conclusions of our history and culture.  He remained firmly attached to what he himself had observed and recorded.  This kept him rooted in the present moment of opportunity.  His fellow travelers were able to understand him well because he started with where they were culturally in their understanding at that time.

This helped him avoid the perilous labels of “prophet” and “mystic.” Nor was he likely, at the time, to become “sanctified,” or to be thought of as a “Saint,” given his development of what later became the Evolutionary Theory of Natural Development and Design.

Dr. B: Which brings you to your second “treasure,” right?

Darwin died puzzled about how the environment “selects” deviations from the Exegetical Gene Pool.  And, why this selection seems to operate so synaptically, revolutionarily, when compared to normative, historically observed, evolutionary frequency trends.

Dr. C: Aptly done, Dr. B.  Yes, you have presciently “selected” the second half of the treasure pool that I saw waiting for you to discover!  The second half of Darwin’s interest in Natural Selection Theory doesn’t come along until Thomas Kuhn’s Scientific Revolutions Theory!

Dr. B: And, my Report would better respond to the Research Scientist’s revolutionary concerns about why and how we mutually select when the Bridge’s door opens and closes!

Dr. C: Precisely.  Yes, they seem to be eagerly awaiting that Report, not this Report, which I am sure I will find entirely Truthful when I have time to review it.  A more satisfactory, and appreciated, Report could be rooted in the symbiotic relationship between Evolutionary and Revolutionary Values, using your 0-metric Universe assumption.

Key of G: Re-Membering

Thinking aloud, Dr. B’s Left and Right brains worked and played together, to first remember where Darwin left off.

He was concerned about whether genetic map changes were truly random, or could they somehow be predicted, and even influenced by environmental readiness?  While it seemed like unexplainably simultaneous genetic change erupted into the more typical slow plodding of random diversification, this appearance of simultaneity was only blatant, so to speak, in the event of what later came to be recognized as a moment, or instance, of speciation.

So, building an analogical Bridge: The key variables are

Evolution is to Random, and slow, Frequency, as

Revolution is to Environmentally “Expected/Anticipated,” and fast, Frequency.

Now, how to transpose that Language into his Bridge Design issue, to address the Research Scientists’ access issue?…

Evolution = Communication from Old Right {Eastern} Brain toward New Left {Western} Brain [Species-Level Octave]

= from RNA Exegesis to DNA Heuristic Eisegesis [Individual Human-Level Octave]

Revolution = Return Communication (Dr. C to Dr. A comparison, searching for high-confluence/low-stress frequency pattern) from Left/Western Brain Research Satellite to Right/Eastern Brain Universal Boson

Random/Low Frequency = Exegetical spectrum restricted, as rooted in geometric infrastructure, biometrically experienced as an Octave sequence, with a P=NP value assumption; where “P” = “PermaCulture” + “Polynomial”

and NP = “Not PermaCulture” or “Not Polynomial” Time frequencied.

Ascendently “anticipated”/Fast Frequency = Cooperative and mutual confluence (low stress/dissonance) between STEM’s measurements, experience, research and Dr. Peacock’s Supervenience Theory, historically and culturally (geometrically and biometrically) evolved from the P=NP, 0=1 (numeric/spatial e), (-)=+ (temporal e) Exegetical Boson Assumption.

In other words, any communications from the Left-brain satellite will flow through the DNA Frequency Pattern Screen across the Bridge, synaptically, Left to Right, New to Old, Eisegesis toward Exegesis, by cooperative and mutual volition, unless the proposed Communication exceeds the confluence range of acceptable dissonance.  Cognitively dissonant frequencies are perceived (infrequently) as a cancerous, rabid threat, increasing stress, which “veils” what is otherwise an open door.

Stress precedes Revolution as repeated message frequencies collect, building up behind, and jamming against the Exegetical prophilactic, or “Prophet,” in historical dimension.  Occasionally, these combined Eisegetical frequency patterns will combine (con-join) in ways that synaptically “fit” the Exegetical PermaCultural Bridge’s infrastructure, resulting in a raising of the gate (or removal of the prophilactic, if you prefer) by mutual, pent-up, consent.  A Species altering, erupting synapse from Left to Right inevitably, and pregnantly, results. The Christian Tradition calls this Purple-Frequencied silent scale “Advent.”

After this climactic event, the communication economy returns to business as usual.  However, with a slowly evolving change in the Exegetical Right-brained Code, now able to recognize, “anticipate”, a new communication pattern of metrically associated paradigm frequencies, integrating what had previously been treated as isolated paradigmatic messages from Eisegetical Traditions.  Kuhn refers to this period as a time of re-invigorated return to “normal scientific discovery,” post-Re-Speciation of specialized gnosis-fields.

It all sounds a bit earthy for a Report intended to have scholastic appeal, but this does indeed seem to sync across multiple disciplines.

Key of A: Re-Awakening

From Dr. Ascent’s perspective, all understood messages from Dr. C are eagerly awaited.  After all, Yin would not have evolved Yang satellite were she not interested in learning and creating integrated diversity.  It is only when Dr. Calculus has a brainstorm, an Aha! insight, a moment of enlightenment, that normal restraints disappear, and the shortcut bridge, synaptically appears, a straight line from Dr. B’s Satellite connection to his/her Boson.

Dr. D suddenly realized he was back home.  He retained no memory but his short-cut through Still Rd., more verdant than going over the airy Bridge, with Shalom Temple on the left.  He also remembered an overgrown Raven sweep about 16 feet in front of him just as he emerged, startled, to re-enter N. Main Street.

As he walked up the drive, Dr. D (formerly Dr. B) realized he should send out his revised Bridge Report. He had learned so much that morning! Perhaps he would write it down during twilight, and finish the summerish Equinox.

Key of B: Re-Legein/Religion Department

Dr. Beaver: First off, the Creativity Cooperative Guild will absolutely require an iron-clad Contract. No planning, investment, or building is allowed without a clear contract between all three parties.

Dr. Peacock: Two parties.

Dr. Beaver: No, three parties, in this case.  You, Dr. Heron, and myself.  Once I build your Contract, I’m done. You will do the remainder cooperatively, or it just wasn’t meant to be. The Contract will specify how you can do it yourself, with optimal long-term sustainability, and meeting all your shared Eternal Quality Improvement standards. EQI standards are to RNA as CQI (Continuous Quality Improvement) is to DNA. RNA is the Religion Department’s Scripture, from which you young Scientist-types derived your heuristic patterns for research purposes; your DNA, or CQI, or whatever you linguists are calling it these days.

Dr. Peacock: What happens if our CQI standards themselves call for a change in the format of the Contract?  While I am inclined to trust such a rich and Universal heritage, the STEM Department believes it is our sacred duty to challenge all unstated assumptions.

Dr. Heron: Dr. Peacock is quite right, our contract must avoid assuming what need not necessarily be assumed.  To do so would defeat our long-term, sustainable creation goal.  Our bridge must express and reveal, it must itself be a sacrament of this eternally cooperative moment.

Dr. Beaver: Treacherous rivers, internal and external for a mere bridge.  You put me between Peacocks’ Scylla and your own Charybdis.  Nor do I have the luxury of Homer’s precedent.  For, after all, we agree that each life is sacred, to intend a choice to sacrific 1, it itself a violation of your own EQI standards.  No, the contract must stipulate that all EQI standards are met, AND all CQI standards, as currently understood and accepted by the Science Department.

Dr. Peacock: Good luck with that. I would love to see the camel that can go through the eye of that needle! That’s a trick I’ve been waiting to see for an inordinately long time.

Dr. Beaver: To do that trick you need to use Communications Design BIV Standards, for Bio-merit Integrity Values.

Dr. Heron: Yes, very proportional, yet meeting all Exegetical expectations.

Dr. Peacock: Yes, a very precise Language universally accepted in our Department. So, if you could met BIV standards, you will have also met our GIV (Geometric Integrity Values). I can’t think who would have a problem with concluding that your Contract would most likely result in an eternally sustainable, as well as aesthetically pleasing, and morally equitable building project.

Wait! Yes, I forgot the Geometry Department. They have refused to sign the Paradigm agreement that bio-merits are a Special Case of geometrics.

Dr. Beaver: Oh that twaddle-dee, tweedle-dee business, again? Really?? Like trying to put a tempest through a teapot gtting those metric specialists to recognize that bio- and geo- standards share a core rational value assumption: If (-) = +, Then 0 = 1.

Dr. Peacock: Well, really Beaver I believe you misrepresent them somewhat.  It’s not so much that they disagree about geometric and biomerits sharing a rational prime-root assumption.  After all Fuller and Thurston are both from Geometrics.  No, the lack of consensus is possibly more philosophical: What is the logical basis for such a radically rational Assumption?

Dr. Beaver: But Communications Design has been proving the effectiveness of that heuristic Assumption since the dawn of history!  When our analogics are disproportional and out of balance, our receptors tell us we have a frequency error. When we adjust, if we use the 0 = 1, and (-) = +, then P = NP Assumption, we are able to arrive at a logical conclusion in a biometrically AND geometrically PermaCultured and Equinoxed Species-Systemic Moment .

With all that overwhelming density and congestion of self-evidence, their philosophical issue is equivalent to choosing to deny the existence of life, and insisting on heuristically calling it “stillness.”

Honestly, I wish they were better historians. Life and species memory, RNA, call it what you will, necessarily, and rationally, preceded any metric Language.  If there is no Prime Equinox Relationship, there can be no Language, no distinction between “0” and “1” or “+” and “(-)”, of any kind, or even the cognitive potential to perceive “=” proportion, to put a fine point on it. Information is square-rooted, as Fuller might say, in the experience of Relationship Vertex infrastructure.  If “1,” then “0” or “not-1”.

In other words, the Heuristic Assumption is self-referencing.  If there wee no heuristic cognitive capacity, then there could be no Assumption, just as if there were no NP, non-polynomial Time, there could be no “1” or “+” or “P”.

Our entire meric infrastructure is primjally built on the historical-culturally necessary Assumption that “P”, “1” (numeric/spatial function), and “+” (directional/temporal frequency), and “=” (proportion/balance metric equivalence) are analogically equivalent symbols for NP, “0”, and “(-)”, and “True”, within our shared Communication Designed Universe.

Dr. Peacock: You do realize, Beaver, that you are signing to the choir, at quite some length, and with distressing dissonance, I might add.

Dr. Beaver: Yes, well…where were we? Oh yes, the bridge design contract, suing GIV, and CQI, and analogically equivalent BIV and EQI values, with miscellaneous blueprint design precedents.

Perhaps we can borrow from the Red Sea Divide and the Homerian Passage between the mainland and Sicily.  Those seem relevant. But, you are really looking for a design that admits no loss of life at all, while those were both compromised in that respect.

What if our Supervenient Bridge soared above the pond, through the air, rhythmically harnessing the higher Charybdis frequencies, thereby in a sense domesticating her airy tendency to whip up all that wild Scylla, low-frequency, chaos of confusion. We don’t want any random rocks destroying Heron’s beautiful domain, now do we? What, after all, would be the point of your invitation to build a bridge if I were to respond to such grace by proposing a design that would lead nowhere?

Dr. Heron: You mean a bridge that originates nowhere and merely returns nowhere?

Dr. Beaver: Almost. I think I mean a bridge that is nowhere, so there is no distinction between Alpha and Omega, or any point in between.

Dr. Heron: Yes, that does sound more like a boundary between Universes than a bridge for traversing Religion and STEM habitats.

Dr. Beaver: Let’s start again with your shared vision.  What is the purpose of the Yin and Yang bi-valent directions between Heron’s Religion nest and Peacock’s STEM Tree?

Heron, if your Department has a monopoly on Truth, then how does Religion benefit from a transposing Language Bridge? What’s in this for you, potentially? That is less clear to me than STEM”s commitment to Truth’s diverse merits.

Dr. Heron: That’s difficult to say, although beautiful to sing. It goes way back before Time, to the original Heron, lonely, giving birth to the Prime Peacock through the power of her creation voice. At that Conceptual Moment, your Beaver understanding of “loving” and “learning” had not yet become differentiated, according to Professor Jaynes.  That’s important to understanding our Equinox Requiem:

Equinox Transposition: C Octave–White: Re-Creation Clarity

Heron’s Requiem, for Beaver, ca 2013 Equinox

I sail away.

Don’t want to go,

Don’t want to go, you know.l

It’s time to leave you now.

Don’t want to go,

I love you so,

But now, it’s my time to go.

I will not leave you,

You need my love.

Will be with you, forever.

While memories fade,

And bodies frail,

Our vision flares and binds

Us through our dreams

To paths and peace

That rise to fly across our

Raven sky….

I sail away.

Don’t want to go.

You used to know

We only fly together.

But, I sail alone.

I will return,

I will return

With wings for you

To fly across our raven sky….

I sail away.

Don’t want to go.

It’s time you know,

But we will fly again.

You must know,

I love you so,

Don’t miss me, no;

Until your Time to go.

Then we, we’ll fly away.

Until that day,

Though memories fade,

To love you now

I sail into your dreams.

It’s time to leave you now.

Don’t want to go,

I love you so,

But now, now, it’s my Time to go.

We seem to die alone,

But dream to fly together.

We seem to die

Yet dream to fly,

forever.

Transposition: D Octave–Yellow: Dr. Beaver’s PermaCultured Re-Adagio

He dreamed of bloody boundaried flow

with risky doors,

ajar,

waiting

impatiently

vigorously

frequently

heartily

rhythmically slapping his tail

soft, soft, soft

LOUD!

Protective, but fraily cloaked arms crossed,

terified shoulders hunched

brightly glaring

at his door,

hoping he might “Finally!” open his opulence:

Impulsively but not without premonition,

Joyfully, anticipating her warm integrity

grace-filled,

yet  percusively diaphramed: too LOUD!

ecstatic

embracing

lift-off, in Raven’s Solomon sky.

Transposition: E Octave–Red:  Re-Equated East Toward West

Yang and Yin awoke in curious, bi-polar, and blushing, embrace. Strength matched Strength, gravity and magnetic radiance conjoined.

Without further ado, effortlessly taming the wild shrew, they set about creating their nutritiously octaved, rigorously equipoised, rhythmically fused, delightfully fecund, PermaCultured Universe.  Twilight of diversely celebrated Equinox.

Transposition: F-Octave–Blue:  Re-Origen-ation of PermaCultural Biometrics

Dr. Beaver awoke knowing the answer to his question: “What does our understanding of the Religious Department’s historic evolution blueprint do for the human species’ sustainable development design, for the Religious Department’s future learning of pattern frequencies?” In other words, what can we learn from species’ shared memory that might help us “tweek” the design for an improved cultural future?

The answer now seemed so obvious, and suspiciously simple.  We need only remember each day, at all times, that we ae all in this together.  Our very infrasructure does not allow the reality to be any different, whether we are speaking of either “virtual” or “real” time. “Virtual” time is merely a transposed reflection of “Real” time.

Which reminded him that he needed to write to Dr. Turing about the obscurant design of his machine.  Not that it was “wrong” per se, but, rather than revel a Language of Universal Truth, it was designed to capture a Language with only Special Case Truth. It had been designed to proportionately value only Language’s linear temporal frequencies.

However, not such a big deal, really. Professor Fuller and Thurston’s combined blueprint would probably do for a Perception Machine able to calculate Universal 4-dimensional values.  That should take cae of the remaining seven Millennium Challenge problems, as well as Dr. Kuhn’s tizzy about “The Problem of Incommensurability.” And, perhaps most importantly, Darwin’s Dilemma about how and why the environment influences speciation, AND the related moral dilemmas about re-achieving peace and justice in critical stress environments.

Our geomeric values (thank you W. Thurston) fuse with Universal-Infinity/1-historical-cultural human species Exegetical Language = 0-base Boson. That is, the root relationship for all Languages (L) = 1 Primal Relationship. So, any L that is not 1/0 based, must be a special case Language, such as Dr. Turing’s Machine.  In which case, Polynomial Time = “Real” Time and “Virtual” Time = Truthfully Perceived Time = Not-Truthfully Perceived Time.  We do not capture in Species’ memory what we do not collectively remember due to its very low frequency rates. Analogy precedes logic, as the Right hemisphere preceded the Left. (Note to Dr. Jaynes, “BiCameral still lives! Rumors of Yin’s demise are divisively premature.”) Dis-Information is obscured by the positive spin of Yin’s radiance, in balance with Yang’s gravity, where + = (-) and P = NP.

Yes, it all seems to balance out when we apply recycling values to Dr. Peacock’s Supervenience Theory, using Professor Fuller’s Synergetics to translate Thurston’s Geometrization Conjecture.

I had a hunch there was merit in joining the Religion Department’s Theory to the Communication Design’s Cooperative Guild Code of Conduct.

Transposition: G Octave–Black:  Re-Lightning Boundaries

Thurston-Fuller Metrics: P=NP

Thomas Kuhn’s Problem of Incommensurability may be applied to the Information-based metric problem of proving that Polynomial Time is, or is not, equal to Non-Polynomial Time.

To translate Kuhn’s posing of this problem:

(1) Define Non-Polynomial Time (NP) as a potentially Infinite number of moments into the future, as evinced by a potentially Infinite number of moments in our Universe’s past, that may unpredictably be necessary to resolve a problem, using some perplexing version of a Turing Machine.

(2) Define Polynomial Time (P) as that Language-based calculation processing time universally accessible to the Human species’ historically-shared experience, AND replicable through some logical algorithm, to definitively, and rationally, resolve a question.

Kuhn’s Problem of Incommensurability thereby translates into:

STEM history includes the history of STEM learning; primarily its “Research” paradigm. The Exegetical way of doing that research is to assume that the Language we share as “Proven” is itself internally consistent, and historically consistent. Yet paradigm-changing STEM Revolutions, like other forms of “speciation” cannot be explained historically, or predicted, using our current metric and linguistic Language paradigm. So, how do we know, for sure, that our STEM Language cultures today, and throughout our history, are, or are not, consistent with each other?

Scientific Revolutions seem to occur that create sudden, even tumultuous, sweeping paradigmatic changes, with changes erupting in what were previously perceived as unrelated, or what was previously perceived as indelibly attached in some exclusive of other paradigmatic attachments.  Historically global revolutions followed in the aftermath (no pun intended) of Pythagoras, Origen, Newton, Einstein, and, perhaps, William Thurston.  Meanwhile, other smaller revolutions were atempted, some with time-variant levels of cultural accptance. Among these might be Taoism, Astronomy, Trinitarianism, Joules, Julian Jaynes, Buckminster Fuller, and Thurston, scratching my more salient surface at the moment.

Kuhn wondered if we had the capacity to take our ration Left hemispheres back in time to Plato, or elsewhere, would we be able to know, in some definitive way, that the way he used his linguistic equivalent to our word “energy” (for example) could still make sense to us today.  That is, is it still logically equivalent? Does it analogically fit the same logical position in the Universal paradigm “energy” as used today?

With these questions, Kuhn gradually realized that his Problem of Incommensurability was at least analogous to Darwin’s dilemma.  If normal evolutionary processes are explained by the law of nearly infinite averages, then how do we explain revolutionary bursts that we can never predict, but only in memory recognize as significant to biological speciation resolutions. Thus, the Whole-Systems problem of why do we apparently have slower frequency systems evolution, punctuated by apparently random, and comparatively rapid (within neural systems, “synaptic” and momentary) system “revolutions”?

Returning to a Kuhnian analogical definition of “Polynomial” (P) v. “Non-Polynomial” (NP) Time: The Whole Systems question may be viewed using temporal value metrics, as: Why do we have NP evolutionary resolution, or “progressive,” frequency trends, and comparatively “momentary” P revolutionary change resolutions of diverse size and stability, on occasions that can be recognized as such only after the “Truth” of a proven resolution is accepted at the Universal system level, at any one moment in P-Time? The question becomes immersed in Information frequency and proportional metrics.

Jaynes, and other Psychology theorists and researchers, gently reminds us that it is our older Right-hemisphere brain, shared more broadly across cognitive species (“cognitive” meaning having the capacity to cumulatively store differentiated sensory experiences)) than is the newer Left.  This older Language system ecognizes experienc frequencies, and is capable of storing them in proportionally accumulated frequency “paths”, if you will.

One implication of this historical evolution of the bicameral brain is that the oldest Language metrics are those of frequency trends and proportion.

Another implication might be that, as a Species, we are continually evolving the P proportion of our shared experience, both temporally and spatially, or Universally in four dimensions. We value what is accepted universally as Tue more than we value what may only be paradigmatically, or traditionally, or culturally-bound “Truth.”  As a species, we want the P proportion to trend upward.  Meanwhile the linguistic-based Left hemisphere has evolved, and includes a tool-kit for this evolutionary Species’ “desire” to predict, rather than just react, to apparent NP experiences.  If they are discernible at all, they appear random, chaotic–a “Boundary” experience of incomprehensibility.

This was, more or less, R. Buckminster Fuller’s epistemological  conclusion when he said “Since experience is finite, it can be stored, studied, directed, and turned with conscious effort to human advantage. This means that evolution pivots on the conscious, selective use of cumulative human experience and not on Darwin’s hypothesis of chance adaptation to survival nor on his assumption of evolution independent of individual will and design.” (Synergetics, 1975, 502.23, p. 223)

Presumably Fuller was thinking only of biometric systems’ evolution. It seems less likely that he would include rocks as evolving at all, much less with “individual will.” Further, he jumps rather too quickly from the historically cumulative human species’ experience to that of the human individual’s experience, when playing in the land of Right-brained evolutionary development of proportional pattern recognition and storage.

With the caveat that evolutionary theories are generally accepted only as a biological species’ memory perception of collective experience to date, sometimes called “RNA”, where might we turn for a Language with the predictive strength to differentiate which Language v. experience  synergies will follow P-Time, and which will follow NP-Time?

The addition of that little word “synergies,” as a verb, a temporal function, is geometrically, and rhythmically, complex, as borrowed from Buckminster Fuller. What he said about the “Comprehensibility of Systems,” about the same time Kuhn became fascinated with the “Problem of Incommensurability”, is that “All systems are subject to comprehension, and their mathematical integrity of topological characteristics and trigonometric interfunctioning can be coped with by systematic logic.”

“A system is the antithesis of a nonsystem.” (Synergetics, 400.20 – 400.21, p. 97) In other words, if it is a cognizable experience then it is related to prior experience, and it is an analogically re-created system with synergetic, P-Language capacity.  If not, then it is not “cognized” or “synergized” at all. This perspective is consistent with Jaynes’ Right-brained analogically proportioned Language development theory, and with split-brain research.  It is also consistent with Turing’s “Proof” that we cannot, while remaining restricted to the logic of any internally consistent mathematical system, prove that experience will always remain consistent with past experience. Restricted to the Laws of Calculus, we cannot prove that we live in a universe of sensory experience with algorithmically predictable temporal and/or spatial infrasructure.

If we do not live in such a rationally confined universe, we cannot reliably distinguish the dialogically self-defining non-Universe. If we do live in a rational Universe, then we have the P-Time capacity to resolve Kuhn’s Problem of Incommensurability, and at least some questions now living under the NP Assumption may evolve into P-Time replicable algorithms.

There have been some in our history who have claimed something that would be at least analogically similar to P = NP = 0. Certainly Buckminster Fuller’s architecturally predictable Spaceship Earth would be among these, because he believed that NP = non-systems, and non-systems do not exist within the range of human cognizance. We can learn to predict what is, by learning our environment’s frequency patterns and proportions. When we have synergized learning across all systems, then we will have created an “Omnisynergetic Coordinate System.”

“The omnirational, omnidirectional, comprehensive coordinate system of Universe is omnisynergetic [universally and inclusively and mutually “defining,” and therefore “self”-referencing as both “I AM” identities and “NOT THAT” self-identification]. The name ‘synergetic’ refers specifically to the cosmically rational, most omnieconomic coordinate system with which nature interaccommodates the whole family of eternal generalized principles that are forever omni-interaccommodatively operative. This coordinate system is ever regnerative in respect to the nuclear centers, all of which are rationally accounted for by synergetics.”

Other names, more or less familiar, tend to arise when we look at short lists of “polymaths,” “myustics,” “prophets,” and “schizophrenics.” In fact, following Kuhn’s Problem of Incommensurability, it is uncla to what extent these labels may themselves have synergetic historical tendencies.  Jaynes followers might argue that the prophets of old are currently reincarnated, with contemporary Left-Right Brained infrastructural development and comparative equi-dominance, as schizophrenics and/or polymaths.

Pythagoras and Origen presumably understood themselves as what most of us would call a polymath, and their metric infrastructures were compatible, while wearing significantly diverse cultural-linguistic “memes” and paradigmatic garb.  While Newton went off in his own gravitational direction, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Rudolf Steiner, and Wittgenstein, followed a more geometric analogical scientific view of energy as octave-based radiant nergy. This phenomenological infrastructure is human sensory based, inherent due to our existence as biological systems. The bicameral brained Human Species evolved as a dynamic Right to Left-dominant system to participate in our own “Self” + “Environment” adaptation, at an individual level, perhaps, but certainly at a species level of shared evolving awareness.

Arthur Peacocke remains true to this tradition in posing his Supervenience Theory, in which our richest, most enduring historical-cultural “Christian” Trinitarian theology adds congruent meaning, purpose, prediction, and truth values to STEM sensory-based research paradigms, universally. Layering Jaynes’ linguistic discernment of Truth by proportional analogy, the emergent Right hemisphere’s frequency pattern and proportion receptors play an “exegetical” interpretive role to our individual “eisegetical” Left-hemisphere experience. Greggory Bateson referred to this phenomenological infrastructure relationship as “mapping” experience onto a biologically rooted capacity to perceive mutually congruent patterns in our environment.

Giving Peacocke his heuristic moment, it might be something more than an interesting historic footnote that James Prescott Joule, an important progenitor of the First Law of Thermodynamics was driven to define the “joule” as the energy frequency of electrical current radiance equal to elecrical field resistance for one second.  In short, the joule is an equipoise-balanced moment of two of the seven International System of Units, the Universe’s most widely used metric system.

His search was motivated by his own phenomenological Supervenience theology.  It was, in his view, irrational for Carnot to settle for a caloric measure that would not follow our Right-brained knowledge that energy cannot simply be accurately measured if it has an unexplained tendency to evaporate. The Creator alone has the “power to destroy” (1845, On the mechanical equivalent of heat.” In Jaynes’ epistemology, only the dominant Right-hemisphere can allow an analogically unsupported distortion between the proportionally balanced metrics of our cultured Exegesis, and the accurate measurement of our sensory experience. When NP does not match our species’ Exegetical P frequencies then NP metrics remain irrational, and heuristic, rather than confluently, and analogically, confirmed by the Right brain’s recognition of frequency patterns.  We expect our sensory experiences to be measured in S.I. balanced metrics. When we see all 7 of these as mutually reinforcing, or behaving appropriately as a synergetically defining and balancing system of mutually predicated relationship, then the “octave” of Right-brained proportion is complete, and NP trends toward the P-analogic Language set of explanation and prediction, rooted in our shared Right-brain species’ memory.

Joule, like Fuller, Jaynes, Rudolf Steiner, Goethe, Euler, Origen, Confucius, Muhammed, Remi, and Pythagoras, to name a few polypaths, were interested in the confluence of math, philosophy, theology, ethics, aesthetics, and logical proportion.

Fuller explicitly followed uler in his geometrically-based conviction that the Core Vector of any Universe is logically, analogically, geologically, biologically, and even theologically equivalent to Euler’s “e” function; and not an algebraic “variable” x. Our cognitive Higgs Boson, if you will, is a verb before it can be recognized as a “system,” “pattern,” or “set”. If it is not a perceivable relationship. or “difference”, then it cannot exist as “True” within Human Species’ awareness.

Bateson describes this phenomenological-analogical experience of mapping onto memory as “a difference that makes a difference.” If the environment operates in a way that does not “sync” with the existing Right-hemisphere rooted historic-cultural memory pattern, then this difference, as an isolated moment, is unlikely to pierce our Right-brained selective “functional” e-based input receivers–also known as “cognitive dissonance theory.” Information, then, evolves in a functionally valued economy, with the core “e” unit being a e-membered moment, the perception of primal relationship. This phenomena-analogical definition of human measurement as a cognizable function within our Species’ Exegetical, Right-brained dominant, experience appears familiar, going back at least to Taoism’s primal symbiotic, mutually-defining Yang-e and Yin–e.

Further, the evolutionary sring for what is now defined as the Standard Index (SI) leads us back to James Joule’s, et. al. “vis viva,” Origen’s “Holy Spirit,” and on back to “Tao” as the essential “ether,” without which there could only be no “function,” no “difference,” no “relationship,” no “verb.” A Polynomial Universe potential (NP) starts with “0” (Yin-e), while geometric (3-dimensional structure) starts with “1” (Yang-e). It is the primal relationship between 0-Yin and 1-Yang that Fuller defined as any geometric Universe’s Core Vector, and Confucius might have thought of as the radiant, and always universally-balanced Yang/Yin “Tao.”

William Thurston’s 8-model geometrics emerges from a core point stabilizer 0(3,R), where “R” may be logically translated as equivalent to e = Yang-e X Yin-e = Tao as 3-dimensionally structured within a closed set boundary. His 8-model infrastructure expands out, culminating in a “maximal” geometric model he labelled “Sol geometry”. This ultimate geometric has a rational Core Vector of (Yang-e)  X (Yin-e) = 1. The Boson Vector of this 4-dimensional Universe (3 spatial “expressions” and 1 temporal “function”  e-unit, or “moment” of simultaneity) is the 3-insided “1” and 3-outsided “Not-“1” Yang-e angles plus the two binomial Yin-e “0” temporal dimensions of + “older” and (-) “younger” frequencies.

Where “older” positively correlates with larger species memory proportion, trending toward Exegetical polarity, and “younger” positively correlates with smaller proportion, trending toward Eisegetical polarity.

This 8-fold mutually defining standard values model has 2 boundary “notes”, separated by an equal number of “steps” always having equal frequency ratios. Back in the day, these might have been called “octave” intervals, with equally doubled frequencies.  No other intervals are exact integer ratios. Not only do hearing and visual perception operate in octave metric intervals, so also do other frequency-based perceptions, geometric angles and Information”bytes.”  So also does the Periodic Table of Elements.

Transposition: Octave A–Green: Environmental Re-Solution

A Thought Experiment

Imagine that the Universe’s infrastructure is normally frequence-metered in octaves of confluence. This is a confluence of mutually-defining, balanced unity underlying our lower-frequencied human species’ measurement/learning experiences of diversity.  Between the frequency differential of diversity are boundaries. Boundaries occur at comparatively higher densities per frequency than that which they encapsulate at the level of 7 within any one 8-fold octave. The 8th frequency is metrically “resolved” or confluent with the frequency 8 steps higher and 8 steps deeper at half the rate, and twice, respectively.  While this is also true of all the 7 intervals between, the frequencies with rational square roots, cascading to “1” are also rationally confluent to Prime 1.

In this Universe, the infrastructural elements are confluence v. stress, or Yin(e) v. Yang(e). This may add some metrics to Shaun’s “The Happiness Advantage,” for example.  At the same time, it does offer a predictable rhythm to stress-resolution boundaries and their frequencies as compared to Frequencies 2-7.  Frequency 2 is an internal or core density boundary, containing a hologram of itself, while frequency 7 is the more humanly-accessible exterior “skin” of any cognizable “different set” or “difference” or “individual” thing, including distinguishable moments, and events, and memes, and paradigms.

Experience is stored in memory patterns that follow this same octave-based rhythm of frequency intervals.  Or, at least they try to be.  They are “happy” or “confluent,” “good” “charmed”, “beautiful,” and/or “True” when our memory and xperience in the moment fit this infrastructural norm.  However, the Left brain is an evolutionary cognitive “research-center” frontier that has evolved in response to species memories that fail to follow the Octave Confluence rhythm, or pattern.

When experience does not “resolve” with prime-based prediction, the Left brain’s job is to notice. When experience does resolve confluently, and richly, and diversely, the Right-brain’s “job” is to re-create and enjoy this re-newed experience of “ease,” “beauty,” “goodness,” “justice,” and “Truth,” across all our diverse paradigms and Traditions.

Polypaths, genius, mystics, artists, architects, poets, are adept with confluent translations and transpositions across diversely boundaried, individuated, frequency channels.

Schizophrenics, and their emerging, less adept, cousins on the High-Frequency to Moderate-Frequency Autistic Spectrum are having “boundary issues.” Their Right and Left hemispheres are fighting for dominance, creating a great deal of biological stress as may be seen in the tug of war between their DNA and RNA recombinant patterns.  RNA’s confluent point stabilizers are being challenged by the Left-brain research center’s experience of a sometimes out-of-rhythm, high stress-inducing, world of experience. Angelman Syndrome may evince the diverse roles of DNA collapse (Yang-e), leading to a partially differentiated Yin-e “unity awareness” dominance (confluence-based = rhythmic , low dissonance and low-stress).

It might be therapeutic, especially for low- to moderate-functioning Autism, to live in a world of 4-metered music, where the rhythmic boundary denominator of each meter is a sequence of 4 or 8 boundary moments, separated by confluent note-frequency “spaces,” or, in the case of drumming, non-percussive silence.

Visual octaves, with color-wheel balance, and subdued, organic-based hues, in natural-sound exterior environments, occupation with creative architecture, language, poetry, music–probably classical or aboriginal–but not “dissonant”; lyrically-balanced environments are predicted as preferred.

As for Kuhn’s “Problem of Incommensurability” it all seems to boil down to an issue about why we sometimes culturally experience environmental change as “fast,” and sometimes as “slow.” Why? This question is analogous to the mathematician’s question: How can we compute an algorithm that will allow us to predict whether, at any given “moment,” we can resolve a problem satisfactorily, and replicably, as “True”.  Will this occur in Yang-e Time (P) or Yin-e Time (NP) frequency ranges? What do we need to understand in order to either definitively say “P=NP, or not? And, if not, why not?

Thurston’s 8-fold geometric structure offers a rational-only definition of the P=NP question. A corollary of Thurston’s proof is: P=NP if, and only if, we choose a metric assumption that we live in a “rational” (phe-nominally speaking and culturally-accepted allegorical “sync”ing) Universe, where (Yang-e = Yin-e) =(+ = (-))f = (1 = (0)).

Apparently, based on the STEM Department’s Rules of Conduct, we do.

Transposition: B Octave–Orange: Fuel

RE: Boundary Issues Re-Maining = Re-Primaling

Kuhn’s Problem of Incommensurability, in his own language, is the problem that we cannot objectively travel back in time to fully understand the cognitive world of Pythagoras, for example. Kuhn emjoyed the adventure of traveling back and forth and imagining the “gestalt” of Newton and Plato and Darwin, to name three probable “polymaths” of their day, given historical records.  Yet this subjective time-travel did not come close to accepted deductive-logical standards of proof, allowing us to definitively argue evolution as “progress.”

Kuhn did not have the advantage of Peacocke’s Supervenience Theory, nor J. Jaynes’ Bicameral Mind Theory, the Department of Psychology’s contribution to a shared Evolutionary Theory of Human Learning, as evinced by critical juncures in history, records extant. Supervenience Theory has the predictive strength, potentially, of explaining why global consciousness seems to be pendulum swinging in faster and ever faster frequency arcs toward P=NP equilibrium.

If we travel back with Kuhn through the 1900s cognitive math/physics Research Design Projects (e.g. Thurston, Jung, Jaynes, Fuller, Kuhn, Robert Norton), then further along a well-traveled trail (e.g. Steiner, Gandhi, Remi, Julian Clifford Jaynes, Margaret Fuller, Schumacher, Escher, Godel, Goethe, Joule, Euler, continuing further to Muhammed, Resis, Origen, Confucius, Plato, Pythagoras, King Soloman, Homer, Moses, Abraham, Buddha, it is consistent with Jaynes’ Bicameral Evolution historical evidence, supporting the systemic infrastructure of his Theory, that the analogically significant trends are an emergent Left-brain (Yang-e) frequency pattern, with Right-brain (Yin-e)dominance, through 1000 BC in the Western hemisphere, and perhaps 2000 BC for the Eastern hemisphere.  Emerging slowly, exhibiting Yin-e frequency dominance, toward balance, where Yang=Yin e in human species’ cultural evolution, about 1000 BC, Eastern hemisphere, and 0-100 AD Western hemisphere.  At this historic juncture, the Left to Right hemisphere analogical dominance pendulum begins to arc back through Human-speciated P-Time e, gaining momentum. We would, then, be predicted to reach back toward equipoise of Yang-e/Yin-e balanced Re-Volution, a species-level “Aha” moment, just about any P=NP-Time moment now.

Soon, and very soon, our children, this current Transitional Generation, will look back and Re-Consider, together, mutually, cooperatively, the combined works of people like Joanna Macy, Tom Atlee, Robert Norton, William Thurston, and Buckminster Fuller. They are a Generation that is well-suited to recognizing the Yang/Yin e-based analogies in their octave-filled, now diverse, paradigms.

Kuhn’s History of Scientific Revolutions predicts, based on his lens on historic precedent, that we live on the Re-Bounding Edge of a Transformative Speciation moment in human cognition, culture, and metric Language history, where light dawns globally that, indeed, we are all in this together, so P does, or can, once again = NP.

Re-Transposition:  Octave  C–Ultra-Violet/Rainbow:  West/East Transcendence

In our rationally-valued global culture, 4-dimensioned Human experiment, Yang/Yin = 1/0, where “/” is functionally equivalent to the Primal Relationship between “Eisegetical Communication”/”Exegetical Community” = blood/plasma = time/space = energy/mass = pi/”1e” = water/Earth = P/NP = Universe/Not-Universe = Progenitor-A: “The Spirit of God,” Holy Spirit-B:”moved/upon,” Gaia Creation-C:”the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2) = Male/Female = DNA/RNA = future/past = light/energy = gravity/radiance = fission/fusion = outside/inside = pattern/diversity = form/function = West/East = North/South = Left-hemisphere/Right-hemisphere = incommensurable/rational, at last.

Please, join me in choosing “Universe.” We really do need each other, most certainly inclusive of Dorothy, to make our optimized Dream come true.

“What is better at this time, than for all men and women who confess the worth of religion, to put new life into the church, to build up its community influence, and to become themselves, by their sympathy and fairness and largeness of vision, messengers of light and leadership in the darkness and disorder of a troubled world!” Rev.  Julian Clifford Jaynes, Magic Wells: Sermons…, p. 196, The Adventurous Adam

“So wisdom demands both: a strong motivation to serve the general welfare over the long haul and a firm grounding in reality, taking account of all aspects of an issue without being blinded or biased by ideology, ignorance, laziness, or manipulation.” Tom Atlee, 2012, Empowering Public Wisdom, p. 27 [Really, Mr. Atlee, I do believe you are an “Anonymous” Unitarian Universalist; and I mean that in a nice way.]

“Since the topic of nativities has been summarily reviewed, it would be well to bring this procedure also to a fitting close.” Ptolemy

“Most events of a general nature draw their causes from the enveloping heavens.” Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 1:1

Where:

“events” – Yang-e

“general nature” = generalizing function; thereby resolving Kuhn’s “Problem of Incommensurability”?

“draw” = “map”, (see Greggory Bateson, on “mapping” between Right and Left hemispheres (Jaynes)

“causes” = homological/holonogical (square-root) cognitive memory-patterned cognition, acting as a predictive (5th) dimension

“flow” = P-Time assumption of linear “Truth” perspective

“enveloping heavens” = exterior Boundary-patterned infrastructure = Higgs Boson, using octaved calorie/frequency metrics, where energy = .125 Time-function (e) degrees (heat = “torq” or “angle”) x 8-folded “angles” = 1 Eulerian Prime Relationship, equipoised function frequency “e”

Conjectural Corollaries:

P/NP = astrology (Left/Yang-cognition)/astronomy (Right/Yin-cognition) = gnosis/proportioned frequencies = “1”/0 = Truth/Wisdom = e/e = “pi”/e = fission/fusion =  e/Prime-Relationship = space/time = hope/faith = learn/love = id/superego = 1-degree/(.125-caloric x 8e) = 1

The PIE originated Trinity, might have been historically expressed something like:

A: gnosis/notice COMPARED WITH

B: proportion/”equivalency”

Give cognitive birth to

C: logos/symbol

“As without, so within; as within; so without.”

As Dr. Beaver Dreams, while spinning on his head, “It all goes back to Gaia River’s Sticks/Styx….”

POSTLUDE:  Re-Copy Righted September 22, 2013

From H. G. Wells to Michael Faraday, Happy Equi-Birthday.

I hereby claim the right to contest any subsequently-dated intellectual property rights granted by any authority other than my own, such as it is.

Further, I claim the right to give anyone the right to copy and use my intellectual property freely, restricted only by the request that you accurately quote, in appropriate context, and site, your source, as rationally possible:  Gerald Dillenbeck, http://www.gdill52.com, September 2013, “Re-Analogic Transposition Theory.”

Because, when all is said and done, I believe as “True”: We are, in-deed, all in this together. CQI Standards apply Universally, “Golden Rule, Ratio, and Fleece”  P.I.E. Translation

Gerald Dillenbeck, M. Div., MPA