Ms. Tao Quality and Mr. Zeta Power Are Permacultural Lovers:
Information-Byte Sexual, Political, and Cultural Economies
TO: Value Permaculturian Boson
FROM: G.O.Dillenbeck
October 6, 2013
Dear Value Metrics Permaculturians: (not to be confused with Rosacrucians, Pythagorians, or Rotarians, or Christians; more of a Historian’s Received View of what they each used to look like—Once Upon A Time…
So, let me tell you about my morning so far. It’s now 5:52 A.M. on Sunday, October 6, 2013, and I have been up for about 90 minutes. I woke up with a head cold, which my kids have all had, one at a time, of course. Right on schedule, I am always the caboose in the infectious diseases department.
Ate some breakfast, which is not my norm, but I thought I should take care of myself. Made 4 metric Cups of coffee, added honey and 1% milk, which is my norm, took my blood pressure and cholesterol meds, my CoQ10, but forgot the Echinecea, although it might be too late for that to be effective anyway. Came back to bed; where I am now.
During the evenings, of late, I have been reading some math and science history, as a recently-retired hobbyist. I don’t mean I was a “hobbyist” prior to being retired, however true that may be, but rather that my formal education foci were theology, Scripture, ministry, public administration, child and family welfare policy, economic policy, budgeting, etc., etc., etc. More or less in that order.
The rhythmic evolution of the math and science cultural story has become therapy for a frustrated social justice advocate, having invested the prior 20 years in scrounging for grant dollars, having come up with less than $2,000,000, averaging less than $100,000/year, taking about a third of that to pay the mortgage for a household that takes our investment rather too much for granted.
Where was I? Oh yes, well, you might have noted that the closest I came to numbers in my professional life was in the context of writing grant proposals, a few of which were research proposals. I had noticed, along the way, in the research paradigm, the budgets, and decisions about what to fund and priorities, and the values attached to those priorities, operated very much like Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, had observed as “normal science.” Basically, not very well, or at least not very rationally, anyway.
Kuhn was persistently focused on why scientists, and lesser mortals of all types, sometimes change their paradigmatic assumptions to accommodate a revolutionary hypothesis, even before its potential for increased explanatory and predictive value has been experientially vetted. Kind of weirdly like predicting the kettle black before its had a chance to get fired up. We can deductively explain paradigm shifts when a new theory has been tested against experience, (“Yes, that kettle certainly did get dark!”) given business-as-usual time, but a revolutionary flurry of excited enquiry occasionally erupts into specialized paradigms (Oh my God, did he guess that right? Is the kettle really darker than I am now? I didn’t see that coming!) prior to normative, evolutionary discovery. Why?
Further, why can we recognize these paradigm speciation events only in hindsight? This remains a generic evolutionary question, emerging pervasively throughout the “evolution” paradigm itself, with the possible exception of Supervenient Evolutionary Theory (Arthur Peacocke, Wayne Teasdale, perhaps Buckminster Fuller, though who can say really what was in the mind of Fuller?).
Interestingly enough, this also remains a generic metaphysical question, when posed as: “Why can we recognize when eisegetical spiritual experience will become exegetical religious orthodoxy only in hindsight?” How might we deductively predict when a belief, or Language, or paradigm, or experience will function in our culture with the power value of Exegesis (basically, “Orthodox” within any Boson variable), rather than its former power value of eisegesis? Eisegesis being that “static Quality” of Robert Persig, including subjective imaginations, beliefs, “business-as-usual” private knowledge, “secrets,” hidden, clouded, sometimes manic, depressive, Schizoid, bipolar; but always tacitly held by the individual as part of the Left hemisphere’s implied Information pattern. Stuff we’re individually used to about ourselves that may or may not be public knowledge, including our inability to predict whether or not our Left hemisphere is always operating on Orthodox frequencies.
Eisegetical Information is internally explanatory and predictive of “business as usual.” Exegetical Information is globally explanatory and predictive of “business as usual” Information. Exegetical Information acts as an Information Boundary of Eisegetical Information. One might say that the Inquisition was the Defectively Embodied Exegete having his way with the Wild Eisegetes, including those who happened to know more about Permacultic Truth and Rationality than did the misguided, and perhaps overly testosteroned, Exegete.
When someone else’s Eisegetical Information is out of sync with my perception of Exegetical Information, then I tend to call that person “Autistic,” or “Learning-Challenged,” or just plain “Crazy.” With the possible exception of Crazy, I don’t use these labels to be mean, or to marginalize, or to judge; I use them because other people who observe that person’s communication patterns have also noticed that this particular bicameral brain-system appears to be out of sync with their understanding of our shared Exegetical “True” and “Real” experiences. There seems to be a Exegetical Truth safety in numbers. Everybody gets to vote, but we live in a majority rule sanity system.
But, herein lies the tyranny of the majority, the problem with giving each other the authority to define Orthodox Truth Values using our one-person-one-vote system. As the Inquisition shows us, as well as many lesser “inquisitions,” What the majority at any one moment of history, and any one moment of culture, defines as Orthodox Truth does not remain constant globally and eternally as “Reality.” That is, in hindsight we can see that the Inquisition was at least a bit of a stretch in the Reality Department. Seriously, speaking of smaller “inquisitions,” in hindsight, don’t most of us deep down in our hearts think that Cardinal Ratzinger’s, and later Pope Benedict XVI’s anti-gay, anti-feminist, male-dominant clericalistic view of the long evolutionary Tradition of Judeo-Christianity was just a tad lacking in good, solid historical information?
So it’s difficult, right, to live in a U.S. Culture that is this big experiment in democracy and stand by while Exegetical Bullies flagrantly violate both our own sense of what is Orthodox Truth and our sense that we should at least give one-person-one vote in our own Metaphysical Information System! Who gave “Them” the power to declare the “Unreal” Real, the “False” True?
Now watch how you answer that question, because if you say “We did,” then you are what we call “majority-culture identified.” If you say “They did,” then you are what we call “marginalized.” Most gay people and women and people of color, I suspect, answer that question in my culture, at this time, with “They did.” And that is precisely why we are so damnably sensitive about this question of who gets to determine what is “Eisegetical” and what is “Exegetical,” based on what Information?
And are these Control Freaks the same ones who get to decide what is “Information” and what is “Disinformation” or “Misinformation?” Because we’re fairly sure we are not in the second group either, the ones who control Information Values. And, if the first group, the ones with the Information Value Control Power, are the same group as the ones controlling what we value as Information v. something crazy, then no wonder I often wonder why what seems “True” also seems “Irrational,” Unreal,” “Not Good,” and just plain “Ugly.” So, what really is my merely Eisegetical Truth, and what is my best informed Exegetical Reality, and how do I, and we, keep these two things together?
How, exactly, do we really know which project, in a highly competitive research, policy, and program market, is most likely to optimize our shared values? As a Grants Manager, I worked in a research paradigm that was constantly shifting focus, trends, emphasis, without anything more than faith in some “Theory” that someone(s) has posited as “not irrational.” Toward the end of my less-than-illuminating career in economic development, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seemed to be leading the charge for something they call “Continuous Quality Improvement” (CQI). Having had a life-long fascination with Whole Systems Theory, CQI sounded vaguely familiar. Sure enough, Public Health professionals, perhaps with some Systems Theory training, were looking for research applications using actual Information-based research values. MIT, for example, has been doing some international health research along this line, associated with their Public Health academic paradigm.
Then I looked at what was being funded and it looked interesting, but also sort of “Big Brother-ish.” Not in a paranoid sort of way, but more robotically neutral. More “value-free” than “value-optimized,” if you know what I mean. For example, connecting digital monitors to organic tissue to send health-related information to a remote center for large-trend/extended-time analysis. A bit like connecting the ants to the colony, with potential for the health professionals to send out critical trend projections to individual ants most likely to benefit from having that information.
These health and wellness projects sounded like a step in the right Information direction, toward CQI standards at the individual level, but I have not noticed so much funding for an Information Theory based proposal to optimize social-level values. Going back to Kuhn, on what basis could we assign metrically-proportioned “weight” to the chaotic community of social values? Is it a higher social value to
restore aging films,
put new bathrooms in the homeless shelter,
install a new state-of-the-art heart diagnostic technology in every hospital,
be sure everybody has a warm shelter so no one is at risk of freezing in their sleep, or
find out more about Uranus?
It depends on who’s backyard we’re talking about, right? And do we really have to choose only one or can we at least have 2 out of 5, or some of all 5? If so, how much of which? And, then we’re back at that problem of who is making these decisions about Exegetical Values in a competing economy of values. Due to what Kuhn called The Problem of Incommensurability, finding CQI standards for significant social-level problem definition, much less
LINE: intervention-outcome feedback reporting (what meets the standards of “Continuous Information” is presumably different for restoring Mickey to his former glory than for heart diagnostic technology),
SINE: comparative-quality trend analysis (and on what scale would one compare such disparate values? If there is no underlying scale comparison, then what would be the point of comparative trend analysis? What amount of value for new shelter bathrooms would outweigh the amount of social value for getting a good look at Uranus?)
And LTR: proportionately comparable replication values (once again, the problem of whose value are we talking about, for what purpose? Maybe I never liked that squeaky Mouse anyway, so why is he even on my short list?)
…could be nothing short of Whole Systems Theory gone Louis Carroll.
Anyway, I have been reading some math and science history on the occasional quiet evening, when my Fetal Alcohol-inspired daughter and my Angelman Syndrome son and my High-Functioning, but scholastically less-than-challenged, son and my ADD 18-year-old high school graduate, with about 4th grade academic prowess, all decide to settle into their respective beds. I also keep a Notes journal and have picked up the habit, over the past year, of jotting down notes not only in the beleaguered margins of my books and science magazines, but also in what is trending toward a network of journals. These I have begun re-reading in the morning with tea, usually, but sometimes with de-caf, especially on these “retreat” mornings, one weekend of respite every four weeks from the otherwise relentless assault, and joys, involved in parenting kids with “special needs.”
Interesting how they have the Exegetically accepted “Special Needs” designation, but my “special need” for one weekend a month away as the primary functional parent (OK, I’m using the word “functional” loosely here, I admit) of 4 wildly diverse kids, and one spouse, a total DNA pool drawn from 12 unrelated parents from at least 3 historically isolated racial-cultural subspecies, remains shrouded in less respectable “Your Dad has this weird need to get off by himself for at least 48 hours without answering to anyone else about anything.”
This morning I stumbled back upon some notes written while reading Julian Jaynes The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind which is essentially another evolutionary theory of the development of human learning. Surprisingly, given that Jaynes drew his paycheck from Princeton’s Psychology Department, his thesis is more closely tied to social-level phenomena than to individual-level phenomena. Even so, his fascinating historical-cultural work certainly is interested in the development of Self-Consciousness as a Species.
While reading a chapter here, and there, then back again, I began to wonder if Jaynes was going to notice that he was talking about a “Special Case” binary Information system. He put “Bicameral” right in his title, but it was published in 1976, so maybe the meme of “binary Information” wasn’t likely for someone other than Alfred North Whitehead and friends. 1976 was the year after I received my Bachelor’s in Psychology at Michigan, having been denied access to Princeton, where Jaynes was teaching at the time, presumably because it was their first year of admitting young women into their heretofore testosterone-restricted walls.
Anyway, perhaps more specifically than Jaynes himself recognized, he was interested in the development of a Binary Information Values Species. If the Left-brained messenger can’t sync with the Right-brained Exegetical Historical Codex, then the conclusion drawn is Not Information. To be Information, we require bicameral agreement, or at least some hope of an agreement.
Less abstractly, Jaynes argues that the older brain Right hemisphere contains the origins of our Homo Species’ cognitive system. Following archaeological evidence available to him in the 1960s, and early 70s, the emergence of the Left hemisphere’s linguistic capacity was through a proportion and emotive-rooted communication system. Organic cognitive systems learned by homologously confluent patterns far prior to “Dick sees Jane” and “Jane sees Dick.” Even “I see You, therefore You see Me” visited our not-so-cerebral cortex long before Dick and Jane in Jaynes’ etiology of language. Analogous confluence preceded deductive logic as our Species’ Continuous Quality Improvement stratagem for learning together.
Jaynes postulates a 6+ stage theory of Left hemisphere linguistic development that begins with “Intentionalization of Vocalization,” then the “Age of Modifiers,” introducing the capacity to communicate comparative difference, followed by the “Age of Commands,” introducing the capacity to communicate the difference between positive functions and negative functions. It is not until Stage IV that we historically arrive at the linguistic capacity for “Life Nouns,” basically what early geometrics defined as within, and Stage V is “Thing Nouns” capacity, the emergent Left hemisphere’s fascination with without. (Kuijsten, 2012, pp. 98-103)
This is the moment in proto-history when the Golden Rule and Golden Ratio emerge: As within, so without; and as without, so within. Perhaps the Original Analogy, and yes I suppose logical-positivists might argue that this is the Original Sin. But, that would not be me. I rather like analogies and metaphors and parables, and legends, and sacraments, and iconic symbology, like glyphs. As I say, just a hobby.
This evolutionary stage theory sounded familiar. At first I thought of Gregory Bateson and Jean Piaget, both scientists interested in the development of learning systems. Then I ran across George Ripley’s pre-Industrial Revolution “12 gates.” These are a geometric-based stage theory of “transmutation.” Interestingly, I had originally written them down because these gates appeared to bear an analogical relationship to the Laws of Interaction, an evolution-staged Communication Systems Theory, as found in Robert Norton and David Brenders (1996, p. 227).
I had been a student of Robert Norton’s at the University of Michigan when I first read Buckminster Fuller’s Synergetics (1975) and wondered at the time if there was any relationship between Norton’s emerging Communication Theory and Fuller’s interest in the hierarchically staged System geometrics of Euler and Willard Gibbs. Fusing this elaborate homology, traversing various paradigms and centuries of thought:
“I wonder why I keep noticing him.”
Stage C: (why “C” rather than “A” or “1” will hopefully become clearer with Samuel Norton, to follow)
Ripley: Calcination
Euler/Fuller: Visual, noticing
Jaynes: Intentionalization
Norton/Brenders: Enthymematic Communication [between environment and “self”] A person fills in premises in a way that makes sense to the self.
“I wonder if he’s interested.”
Stage D:
Ripley: Solution/Dissolution
Euler/Fuller: Radiant energy (coming apart; “solution” is backward-in-time, reverse, dissolution)
Jaynes: Modification [homogenous, Right hemisphere, Old Brain, pattern search], comparison range/stage of re-cognition search
Norton/Brenders: Prima Facie Validity, A person accepts the validity of [without] messages.
“I think maybe he’s looking in my direction.”
Stage E:
Ripley: Separation
Euler/Fuller: Differentiated [pattern homology]
Jaynes: Commands, differentiated between + and (-)
Norton/Brenders: Prior Dependence: The premises structure present understanding.
“Maybe we’re noticing each other, for some mutually confluent reason.”
Stage F: FRACTAL
Ripley: Conjunction
Euler/Gibbs/Fuller: Locally superficial/Internal Set Creation—Fuses together through vertexial bonding or “folding”
Jaynes: Life Nouns [within pattern fusion between Left hemisphere “noticing” and Right hemisphere “functional pattern recognition”]
Norton/Brenders: Idiosyncratic Understanding, enhances the capacity to create an enthymematic response.
“Oops, I think maybe he’s noticed that we seem to be noticing each other.”
Stage G:
Ripley: Putrefaction
Euler/Fuller: Implication
Jaynes: Thing Nouns [without pattern hypothesis]
Norton/Brenders: Sufficient Similarity, to allow pragmatic consequences [in future without experiences]
“I think he’s attracted to me.”
Stage A:
Ripley: Congelation
Euler/Gibbs/Fuller: Mass attraction, potentially directional and descriptive, and kinetically active [without/within homologous pattern]
Jaynes: Names [at the community level, “memes”]
Norton/Brenders: Narcissistic Strength, The strategic communicator uses what the self idiosyncratically knows. [Eisegetical “Truth,” not yet confirmed as “Exegetically Right/Real.]
Notice that there are not just 6 progressive stages, there are also 3 iterative communication cycles. In each binary-Information hierarchy, we started in the Left hemisphere, the exterior-without perspective, which we might heuristically define as the binary perspective that David Bohm called the “explicate” Information universe. This, given Jaynes’ cognition evolutionary theory is at least historically troubling, because it’s now lunch time and I am wondering if I have time, today, to figure out why I started at “C.” It has something to do with my theory about why I started this Thought Experiment this morning in the Left hemisphere, rather than its exegetical ancestor, the Right hemisphere.
Notice also that in sex, politics, and power relationships, the “why” of where you end up depends a whole lot on where, and whom, and what you start to notice. Where you start includes explanatory and predictive Information about why we have ended up where we are at this moment. This is much more true of “we” as a Species than it is of “we” as a collection of individuals.
This brings me back to Samuel Norton, in the 1500s. Not to worry, I will not suggest that Robert Norton is his transgenerational reincarnation. Robert Norton was VERY, VERY intrigued with exactly this question about transposed information patterns, as a Communication Systems Theorist, and an all-round inquisitive kind of polymathic researcher. However, we never traveled back to the 1500s; not together anyway.
The Elder, Samuel, Norton had 14 gates, rather than Ripley’s 12, because he started his “transmutation” model based on older “Golden Ratio” cultural expressions. That’s my theory anyway; remember, I’m the hobbyist, not the historian.
S. Norton’s first gate is called “Purgation,” and his second is called “Sublimation.” He, and his approximate colleagues, such as Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Thomas Acquinas, would have had an exegetical “Received View”, as scientists, informed perhaps by the work of Origen, Remi, Ptolemy, and/or even Confucius. The Communication Theory, Western hemisphere Exegetical View (perhaps equivalent to “Received-On-Steroids”—high confluence/low dissonance) of the 1500s would have recognized the relationship between Purgation and Sublimation as analogous to the relationship between self-emptying and salvation.
But, the rich life of metaphorical learning looks different, in Kuhn’s terminology Incommensurable, when you are time-traveling through history. The Janus-faced relationship between Purgation and Sublimation would as easily be recognized as the mutually self-perpetuating binary relationships of melanosis (dark) to leucosis (light), chaos to natural law, within/without,Yin to Yang, and, numerically speaking, “-0” to “+1”.
While Pythagoras himself very likely would have recognized Purgation, as the gate to Geometric Information’s Sublime Structure, as dark is to light, and as silence is to resonance and harmony, this development Stage, or Gate, gets lost over the next 1500 years, or thereabouts. His intellectual progeny, the Illuminati, remain brilliant and deeply engaged in dialogue about our Information economy of Power and Values, but with a non-Pythagorean historically-driven loss of memory. Meritorious Information emerges from the silent exhalation/inhalation of the chaotic Sea.
Mike Hockney’s latest entry in The God Series is “Hyperreason.” He and the other Illuminati are somewhat frustrated, as was Bucky Fuller, in their continuing failure to engage a wider audience in this noble dialogue about Wisdom. Reasoning about Reasoning is, yes, “Hyperreason,” but Hockney neglects the Universal Prime Relationship underlying Hyperreason. His Meta-Information understands that a Universal Information System has paradigm-fusing potentiated power value. But, this potential can be optimized only through our most radically inclusive “power-from-within,” which, according to Pythagoras’ contemporaries, emerges from the rablous “Purgation.”
Power-from-within, or implicated power Values, develop toward optimization as information about the Information System Theory itself is restored to our cultural norms. Prime Relationship is symmetrically-balanced Trinitarian, but that includes male-female organically balanced power Values and deduction/induction Information Metric Values. Hyperreason can only live and breathe in a Binary Synergetic-Valued Universe. If not, then what is Real to our Right-hemisphered experience becomes what is not necessarily True to our Left-hemisphered experience, and then we have fallen into both Pandora’s and Shrodinger’s Box of confusing paradox. The term “Hyperreason” to describe a Metaphysics of Everything Rational isn’t wrong, it’s just not as precise and inclusive as “Synergetic Reason.”
Hockney’s Meta-Information is indeed more powerful than non-theory based Information, but less powerful than our Universal, rationally inclusive, shared (0) Information Core: Yang Harmonious Power Frequencies OVER Yin Bi-metric Equilibrium. Yang’s power-from-without is only long-term sustainably optimized at steady-state equilibrium with Yin’s power-from-within Values Information Bimetric Assumption. What Is is essentially +/- Polarity. What Is Not is Non-Polynomial, Non-Polarity.
Meritocracy economies are an improvement over other autocratic economies when “merits” are CQI optimized Information systems. These systems do not tolerate “secrets,” or even privacy, as a stratagem for optimizing Values. Secrets equal Information-vacuum, and we all know how Nature feels about her vacuum. Don’t even think about going there! Trust me, it’s not big enough.
The entire Illuminati “Hyperreason” gestalt is, then, a too-serious case of non-penis envy. Strange that such dark lack of humor bears the name “Illuminati.”
Frantically mixing contemporary with B.C. science/math languages, we could try the following lattice of homogeneous BINARY SELF-PERPETUATING (e.g., evolving/developing/densifying) INFORMATION FUNCTIONS:
In any Tao Universe: Yang is to Yin as:
Polynomial Time to Non-Polynomial Time,
Real Numbers to Natural Numbers,
Irrational to Rational
Truth to Rationality
Disformed to Information
Dissonance to Confluence
Integers to fractal-natural proportion,
low correlation (dissonant, complex) Information patterns to high correlation (confluent, good, successful, pleasing, rational) Information patterns,
“pi” to 0
“prime” to “root”
Thurston’s 8-fold Geometrization Conjecture to Fuller’s Core Vector-(0)
Max Tedmark’s External Reality Hypothesis is to his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis
Bohm’s explicate universe to implicate Universe
Hermes Trismegistus, Emerald Tablet: “as above, so below.”
Having gone this far out on a conjectural limb reminds me of William Thurston’s Conjecture. I follow his Rational Prime Relationship Core Vector assumption when time traveling through math history. Oversimplifying, so we don’t all get lost in strings of adjectives (a Bucky Fuller communication concern), let’s continue our Thought Experiment under the assumption that Yang = Yin (Power=Value) across the 4-dimensions as a whole, and that when Yang/Yin balance is achieved within each of the 4 spatial/temporal dimensions, then P (Polynomial) = NP (Not Polynomial) value optimization.
Revisiting Norton and Brender’s Laws, let’s sketch one more iteration above Level A , as follows:
Level B: Left Hemisphere
“Existential Excitement, The strategic communicator thrives on new information.” (p. 227)
But, recall, this is a full octave above Samuel Norton’s Purgation stage. Christians call this upper edge of the seasonal octave, just before a new era of Hope, Advent; while Lent stands in the same position but a full octave lower, just before a new era of Faith.
Level C: Right Hemisphere—Double Fractal Iteration
“Strategic Control, The strategic communicator controls the enthymematic process.”
Samuel Norton refers to this as “Sublimation”, an octave lower. A double fractal of successful Enthymematic Information exchange between Right and Left Hemispheres later, George Ripley calls this stage “Sublimation.” We will find that double-fractals have this annoyingly confusing tendency to collapse into a fused, crystallized, primal base.
While I would like to take our binary-memed Right and Left hemispheres back in time again, I would not want to leave you with the wrong impression about the scope of Norton and Brenders’ work. They continue their Communication evolutionary journey on through inter-cranial Information exchange as well, emerging at the next higher Level C with “Co-Active Control: Control in relationships is always reciprocal.” While some of us who often feel that we have no control in any of our relationships might disagree, to be fair, their definition of “relationship” is premised on the assumption that there is no relationship without mutually recognized communication, just as there is no “community” if there is no “communication.” Communication is the Information economy of any community, or relationship, or paradigm, or system, including mathematical paradigms and systems.
It’s 2 PM, what started as a quietly rainy early-Autumn Connecticut Sunday, has settled into quieter gloom, as has my head cold. I should take a nap, then make yet another vegetarian pasta sauce that only Ivy (who will eat anything) and I will eat. But, I poured another disproportionately large cup of green tea, not decaffeinated, instead. I really want to continue this mental journey to at least a couple more destinations, before returning to my comparatively dysfunctional family nest. I do wonder if they enjoy my monthly Respite Weekend more than I do, at least when totaled, rather than averaged per person.
Which brings me to a historical development theory I have. Imagine that you know only three things:
- You are playing a game.
- There is at least one other player.
- You do not want to lose.
Buckminster Fuller calls this the Game of Life.
A Messenger shows you a Bi-Fractal Information Game Card, you have to circle your strategic choice and send it over to the “Self Hemisphere”, but, remember, you don’t know that. All you know is that you have to choose one of 4 Options:
WHITE: True-Real RED: Not Real-True
NOT-RED: Real-Not True NOT-WHITE: Not Real-Not True
C Stage: You send “White” over to “Self.”
A few minutes later you get a second Game Card, with the same instructions, but “True-Real” has already been circled in blue.
E Stage: You send “White” over to “Self” again. You got the message, “More likely than not, we’re all in this together.”
Your third Game Card is already circled “Win-Win” but this time in red.
G Stage: You continue to send “White” over to “Self.” You may also have developed an unstated hypothesis that the next Game Card will be circled “True-Real”, but in yellow. Maybe “Self” only has primary-colored pencils. Maybe if “Self” survives after using each pencil one time, then you both win.
Sure enough, Messenger revisits with the news that you and “Self” have optimized your binary Information Fractal system, and have both won the game.
B Stage: So, will you meet? Do you get a prize? You wait for the next iterative shoe to fall. You take it as a hopeful sign that Messenger remained faithfully dressed in Violet. Why is that?
I’m really not sure why this imaginary Life Game, using a Left hemisphere perspective, seems to be analogically homologous to our earlier stage octave, from low “C” up through “B”. But, the Game Card structure looks familiar, and not just from Game Theory.
Day 2
It’s Monday noon. I’m monitoring Daquan, my Angelman son. He came down with a serious case of the sniffles yesterday, so we’re both taking it easy in his room. Daquan’s T-cell count is actually lower than mine right now. With his proclivity for seizures, any sickness is serious. He needs same-room monitoring 24/7.
Now he has decided to sit up and throw pillows at me. Probably letting me know it’s time for a diaper change, in his own version of sign language. “Hey, notice me; and just maybe you’ll understand what I want.”
Day 3
It’s Tuesday, October 8th, my older sister’s 67th birthday, or 68th. I woke up thinking about her, and my older brother, still in Michigan. They are so much different than each other, and each so different from Kerry, my younger sister, and I. When Kerry and I were young pre-schoolers, we used to wonder out loud if we really were twins; if maybe somehow the adults just messed that up, about us being born 13 months apart. Yet, with her female-linguistic development, and my right-hand dominant male-linguistic development, given Jaynes’ Language development theory, if we had been twins, perhaps the eisegetical (subjective, posited, hypothetical, heuristic, “maybe True”) discernment about the possible truth, or falsehood, regarding the “actual twins” question never would have occurred. If Jaynes got it more or less correct about Right-brained dominant, then emergent Left-brained dominance for conceptual development trends, Kerry and I got the better end of the choice: being actual twins v. spending a year discerning whether or not we were “actual twins”. The hope of this primal relationship was more significant to the health of our relationship than the faith that we were True-ly twinned.
Anyway, I woke up feeling feverish and a little shaky. Normal for me this time of year, with a cold not quite put out. My T-cells get tired. I need extra sleep, which Daquan and I have been getting. Me more; him less. He had a bad night, after sleeping and sitting in bed all day yesterday. I worry about his T-cells, and the sea-change in health insurance, then national security. Certainly we cannot be very secure if we don’t all have assured access to health insurance! Where’s the Continuous Quality Improvement Value in a Species without inclusive access to well-being resources?
Ivy’s school bus just beeped out front, letting me know that, once again, I am failing as a responsible parent. When she sleeps in, it’s because she has been up, in manic phase, the first half of the night, as was the case the last two nights. She seems to get like this every month before her period; and it is about that time-of-the-month again.
I hobbled down, waved them on. Ivy continues to sleep.
When I woke up in the middle of the night, ostensibly to pee, I realized where I have seen that same Game Code I was thinking about in yesterday’s True-Real strategy scenario. In blood, I think. If I remember correctly. Isn’t RNA the progenitor of DNA in each of us, and doesn’t RNA have a fractal-based Code? If so, how likely is it that this would be a coincidence, speaking of Game Theory?
Ivy’s up. While helping her bathe we sang the octave song. Instead of letters, or numbers, going up and down the scale, we adapt her favorite song “Frere Jacque” into names of colors. “Red, Green, Purple, Red…Red, Green, Purple, Red…” instead of E,G,B,E…E,G,B,E. Neither of us is overly concerned about accuracy, but it seems to “sync” somehow for both of us, and it reminds me that, when I woke up at 2, I was hearing the tune from “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” where they were blasting notes and colors back and forth as a way of establishing the rudiments of a shared Language.
At 11:30 I have finally dropped her off at her school, just in time for her lunch, leaving me about 30 minutes, total, for my “leisurely retired morning of journal writing and quiet reflection.”
The RNA Codon Table, using our Game Card format:
White-“Basic” : Red-“Polar”:
True-Real True-Not Real
Not-Red-“Not-Polar”: Not-White-“Acidic”:
Not True-Real Not True-Not Real
So, maybe we should try translating the Information value of Not-Red as “Reverse-Polar”, as well as “Not-Polar,” and Not-White as “Reverse White,” and therefore Reverse Real. In a Binary Information Universe, this Fractal Set is defined as:
1-1 1-0
0-1 0-0
In Information Theory, “Real Time” is Polynomial Time, while “Not-Real Time” is Non-Polynomial Time. In a cloud-based Information Story System, Virtual Time Information is coded with a time+address Information “glyphed” frequency code. That is, no more than one moment glyph can have exactly the same temporal frequency from any one Information System Universe. This symbol bears a holonic and fractal relationship to the “Real Time” Information sent into the future for anyone who is looking for it, to retrieve from storage.
C Stage WHITE: You send “1-1” over to “0-0.”
You get a second Game Card, with “1-1” circled in Acidic (biometric Special Case)-Not Rational.
E Stage NOT-WHITE: You repeat “1-1” over to “Acidic (0-0).” You got the message, “More likely than not, we’re all in this together.”
Your third Game Card is already circled “1-1” but this time in Polar Red-(+) and “convex” in geometric scaled Information Systems.
G Stage RED: You continue to send “1-1” over to “Polar (+)/Acidic (0-0).” You may also have developed an unstated hypothesis that the next Game Card will be circled “1-1”, but in Reverse-Polar Frequency (-) [“green”]. Maybe “0-0” only has “implicate” primary-confluent pencils.
Sure enough, Messenger revisits with the news that you and “Bi-Polar/Polar/Acidic (0-0)” have optimized your binary Information Fractal, and have both won the game of “True” = “Real.”
B Stage BINARY-GREEN: You wait for the next iterative shoe to fall. You take it as a hopeful sign that Messenger was dressed in Ultra-Violet. Why is that?
Another way of writing equivalent temporal frequency ratios might be:
Basic-U is to Acidic-G, as “C” is to “F,” as White is to Grey
AS
Polar-C is to Reverse-Polar-A, as “G” is to “C/D,” as Red is to Yellow
It would be consistent with the insightful work of Julian Jaynes to infer that the Left-hemisphere’s capacity to perceive blue, as distinguishable from grey, emerged through analogical conversation with the prior emergence of “red” and “yellow” and “green.” The Prime-Octave Information Fractal is color-distorted unless “blue” emerges as both Real and True.
While it is not at all clear to me why, but with RNA whirling strands of fractally-coded color frequencies spinning in my head cold, I picked up my Notes Journal and wrote,
Binary self-perpetuating (Enthymematic) Information Systems, with capacity to optimize Information within any “Community” (atom, molecule, protein, blood-stream, cell, organism, person, tribe, economy, planet), are organic (energized, actual, physical, Fuller’s Special Case) systems with emergent “Self”-awareness potential.
These Binary-Structured Information Systems are implicately Core Vectored at (0), with 3-spatial dimensional forms OVER 1 Eulerian function-e = 3e/1e = 0degree [power in an 8-bit positional Information system structure]= RNA ‘Basic’ Fractal Information.
I wonder if those 2 sentences are metrically equivalent to “As without, so within; As within, so without?” Perhaps a Binary Information System developmental puzzle translation of Explicated Polynomial Time-Yang + Implicated Non-Polynomial Time-Yin = +1e in any Real and True Universe, where “Pi” is Rationally (and Naturally and Enthymematically) assumed to equal +/-1(e)?
If I were to replace all those questions marks with a period, or, worse, an exclamation mark, then I would have a “Real” hypothesis positioned to actively search for, and expecting to find, some theory that would explain what I just said in a replicable, Exegetically accepted as “Orthodox Way”—a Re-Legein, in Greek; an evolving “religious” way of seeing the world. The only way I can see that this would happen is if I could “prove” the theory by demonstrating, again using an Exegetical standard of “Truth,” that not only is that Symbolic/narrative pattern internally consistent, but it also has the power to explain what would otherwise remain dissonant, chaotic, complex, mysterious, and just plain queer.
Day 4
Wednesday morning. I spent most of yesterday afternoon on the phone with the Social Communications Foundation, talking Communication Theory, in one way, and then another, then another. Communicating about communicating about how to communicate becomes complexly iterative. I often shut down, wondering not only what I am talking about, but why I am so absurd as to think it is even worth the effort. But, Catherine Hogan believes its too important to give up on, and, theoretically, I can do no less than agree with her, eventually.
When I look back at the math-muddle I wrote yesterday, that same feeling of despair overwhelms. I certainly don’t care at all about any of that “Eulerian function” stuff, or perhaps even the “Enthymematic” jargon, why would I think anybody else would be interested even if it does make sense? This reminds me of Robert Pirsig’s “gumption trap.” This feeling is exactly what he was talking about. I think it is also what Thomas Kuhn called “The Problem of Incommensurability.” Fuller called it the metric problem of assuming, against all reason, that we live in an irrationally-rooted world. Theologians call it the problem of never being sure if I am thinking “eisegetically” or “exegetically;” much less being able to predict when a Tradition (a Way, Legein, orthodoxically retold narrative) will decide that what was eisegetical hypothesis (individualistic, subjective sense of reality) has now become exegetically accepted as Truth.
Interesting about the theologians’ Information problem. It’s another form of Darwin’s problem with Evolutionary Theory. Theologians also cannot predict when what was considered as Orthodoxy (exegetically-effective Truth within an organism) will slowly degrade into eisegetical disfavor. As Kuhn points out, the transfer of Information status from eisegetical hypothesis about what is real, over to Exegetically-Supported TRUTH, tends to happen quickly, a “Scientific Revolution.” As Darwin and Kuhn discovered, as well as many other forms of evolutionary theorists, we cannot predict an Exegetical-Speciation event. We only recognize it as being “speciation” after the fact. In hind sight, we look back and can see a new branch in the tree of life, including cognitive life, like Christianity, rather than Judaism, and Islam rather than either. We cannot predict when cognitive life, or biological life, like Homo Sapiens, or even the binary/Fractal split between cilia and flagella, will continue with “business-as-usual.” Or can we? The Revolutionary, or Exegetical, if you prefer, Speciation-Event does appear to be more likely as we peer back through Time, if the event can be traced to a hypothesis that synergizes two Bosons and creates a bridge, a transliteration, between what had heretofore been Exegetically experienced, and Coded, as a polarity.
Examples of this kind of historical event that come to mind are:
Combining the “still-state,” silence of blindness with an anomalous plasma energy wave frequency “Big Bang” event, and creating a mid-range frequency pattern that balanced at a long-term, sustainable, Yang/Yin Prime Relationship Equipoised (0) Core Vector, possibly, speaking eisegetically, of course. Wouldn’t want anyone to think I am totally out there.
Then again, there is that book coming out in January, by Max Tegmark, called , Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. He may be saying something like what I just said, or at least something that would be allegorically confluent with a +/- Binary Polarity Prime Relationship (0) Core Vector, especially if he has been studying geometric math during the past 10 years. If I have it right, Buckminster Fuller, maybe Pythagoras, probably John Dee, William Thurston, and Grigori Perelman, possibly Hamilton, and now maybe Tegmark are spreading mutually allegorical folds over each other. Each in their own Eisegetically Positioned (culturally accepted as “Real,” but not yet part of the Exegetically Orthodox culture of “Business As Usual”) way, seems to me to approach the others, completing each other’s enthymematic mysteries, questions, ideas without confirmation, without imprimatur from any cultural Tradition.
When these Mathematicians are mutually-mapped (in a Gregory Bateson sense of Information Pattern “mapped), the newly created Information Symmetry Design between what our Species perceives as Physics- Real and what our Species perceives as Metaphysics-True promises to be both revolutionary and regenerative. Revolutionary within Metaphysical cognitive paradigms, with optimized inclusiveness, and continuous quality improvement. Regenerative within Bionic and possibly Biological Coding Systems; which might have something to do with the mysteriously accelerating rate of Autism, especially in its Higher Functioning frequencies.
There are, I think, regenerative revolution events that seem to be the exception to Kuhn’s observation that most Speciation events in fact are followed by a return to “Business As Usual” energy/Information frequencies (Polynomial Time = “Real” Time). Their predictable pattern is that they newly create our Species’ Exegetical Reality, well-mediated as “Orthodox” True across several cultures and historical eras. We perceive as polar opposites what had heretofore only been cognized as “Not What Is.” This Non-Mathematics, in a Tegmarkian way of seeing Fuller’s “Spaceship Earth,” is not only “Not What Is,” it is also, in a Metaphysical and Conceptual/Conscious Moment sort of way, “What is Not.”
The –(What Is) is “What Is,” except transposed polarity, sometimes as “not-real,” sometimes as madness, sometimes as chaos, dissonance, confusion and, worst of all, “STEM-Certified as “Complex.” Meaning more “dense” than we would use the word in Philosophy, but defined by Perelman’s “Soul Conjecture Proof” as (0) Core Vector in any Information Universe, 8-bit Binary [Base 16 Information Coding Assumption],
LINE = (-)1,SINE = (0), LTR = (+)1.
It only gets complex and dense and irrational when our Species’ Truth and Reality Values Systems get out of whack with each other.
So here’s a Values Symmetry algorithm we could try, just kind of a Truth v Reality Game of Species Evolution. Think of all the opposites that you truly believe are real opposites; both True and Real polarities. Like white v. black, plus v. minus, yes v. no, up v. down, right v. left, West v. East, North v. South, big v. small, male v. female, top v. bottom, convex v. concave, confluent v. dissonant, right v. left, True v. Lie, Real v. Not Real. Now, imagine each of those opposite concepts in grayscale, so the only way you can perceive which is which is by a difference in white/black density. If you are like me, the first half of each of those polarities is lighter, while the darker shading is how I imagine the other polarity. But, you aren’t all like me, and where we find that line between the two shades is often disproportionate. It is easier to see the lighter side, and I tend to ignore the darker half, to dis-value that Information. It is trending toward the lack of Information, toward darkness, silence, density, dissonance, complexity.
Nevertheless, when the Reality of our grayscaled polar Information is out of sync with our colorscaled cultural Values, then what the Received Historical View has Coded as “Real” in our Right-hemispheres has a migraine trying to perceive our environment confluently, with minimal distortion. And most of our Left hemispheres just give up, lapsing into “cognitive dissonance.” This really only becomes the stuff of regenerative and revolutionary potential when individuals’ Left hemispheres don’t give up. They just keep firing away with the same patterned neural memories until they begin to shape into something their Right hemisphere can figure out what to try with this new, uncodable, systemic problem. Lent turns to Advent, Purgation to Sublimation.
I was reading a chapter in Understanding Basic Mathematics, published in 1961 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, written by Leslie H. Miller, of Ohio State University (although as a University of Michigan alum I probably should fail to mention that Ohio State part), entitled “Mathematical Thinking.” (pp. 91-126). I had picked it up at a public library book sale years ago because I most surely do not understand even basic mathematics, and I haven’t the first clue how to think mathematically, except maybe geometrically; certainly not metaphysically, abstractly, and, yes, irrationally, unless I am misunderstanding something. Anyway, on p. 93, Miller is talking about “Number Bases.”
For the positional system with base b, 123 [Base 4] means
1(b)² + 2(b) ¹ + 3(b)° = (b)² + 2b + 3
Even I could notice that when Miller uses the phrase positional system he is using numerals where my Math Teachers had used the words power exponent or its opposite polarity, the square root. And I think I remember what a square is, and how its structure is confluent with any Binary/Fractal 1/0 Information Universe.
So, just try this out and see if it works in your Binary Information System. Pretend your brain is operating within Fuller’s Synergetic Universal Spaceship. Pretend that your Right Hemisphere is one of the “2bit” () Core Vector cognitive Universes and your Left Hemisphere is the other. Your Right Hemisphere’s Code Storage is 3(bit)° [+, (), (-)] symmetric frequency Code assumption]. Your Left Hemisphere receives this Codex trying to map that glyph-patterned Reality Code onto the current Moment (Polynomial Time). Does the Code have the power to explain the proportionate symmetry predicted by the current perception? Does the colorscale of eisegetical Truth in this moment square with the root, Prime Relationship (2b) Code?
Getting back to the algorithm of opposites. When these go political, eisegetically held views within and between cultures initially search for their opposite polarities. Our initial instinct as a learning Species is to search for the opposite extreme as the first step in developing a problem-solving Boson (community, paradigm, discussion, pub conversations). The more intentional we are about doing that as a way of articulating our shared conceptual map, the better off we will all be. It is much easier to find the (0) Core Vector Value sweet-spot when we can look at a map of the territory that we all agree with first, as in, “yep, that’s an inclusive map.” Just point your fingers toward the middle of the map. Our most inclusive answer for that particular Boson/population, on that particular day, is probably right around there somewhere.
Note to Self: The tricky part is helping everybody agree where their eisegetical Truth belongs on the map, in relationship to all the other individuals’ positions. Still, there are some fun ways to do this that seem to make sense to people. Who knows, maybe this really would be a fun Reality Show! (See www.societysbreakthrough.com, Jim Rough, Martin Rausch)
Certainly some have thought we could predict a significant change in Communication, and in our Paradigms and Traditions; even our Communities, or, most audaciously, our entire Universe and History. There are eisegetical theories around. No exegetical ones, except within marginalized communities. The comparative stages of Information development I wrote down on Sunday afternoon include of some of these “eisegetical” theories, such as Ripley’s theologically-influenced “12 Gates,” and even, to a lesser extent, Julian Jaynes on the evolution theory of language . Eisegetical for different reasons, to different communities. When you put them together, though, I start to wonder. Could such a richly complex analogy pattern across different fields be coincidental? If that is not likely, why wouldn’t bringing them together, then pointing at them as an interactive set, be sufficient to create some form of Exegetical Truth Revolution? Maybe even a Reality Regeneration?
Thomas Kuhn is the “go-to-guy” here. He reminded us, in his own time travels through the History of Science, that the synaptic spark for a new Exegetical Revolution is more likely when it is theoretically clear, then corroborated by early research, that the hypothesized explanation for long-enduring puzzles also accurately predicts future outcomes. For example, Einstein’s Quantum Theory made a big immediate splash because the Thought Experiment itself has explanatory power for important and enduring “dissonance/stress” within the Physics Received View, during Einstein’s rhetorical Moment. But, when Physicists were able to confirm the Quantum Theory of Relativity through newly predicted experience/observation, then Quantum Mechanics became Exegetical Truth, and within Einstein’s lifetime.
On the other hand, this Revolution fell short of a truly Regenerative, fully satisfactory, map. Questions remained, and new questions, more complex, more subtle, emerged over “Business As Usual” Time.
Not until Buckminster Fuller comes along, followed by William Thurston, do we, as a Species, achieve the potential for a self-perpetuating revolutionary new perception that energy, mass, and Polynomial Time as “speed of light” are equivalently Valued in any (0) Prime Vector Universe as
Energy = 0 Q-Bit Exponential 4-Base Power Value +/-(e)
Mass = 1 Q-Bit 16-Base Value “pi”
Polynomial and Not-Polynomial Time = 0.5e and -0.5e, proportionately balanced OVER +/-(0) Prime Vector.
Kuhn belabors his initial surprise that nothing in his observations of scientific revolutions throughout history would suggest that these rapidly accepted open doors of hope are accelerated because of anything like mathematical, including statistical, “proof.” That is, we can use math and deductive logic to describe why speciation occurred after the fact, but we have no historical precedent for believing math/logic can predict scientific speciation, “revolutions”. Or any other kind of revolutions, for that matter. When flagella structures (“strings”) emerged from ciliated structures (concave Manifolds), that was most certainly a revolutionary change in the history of organism regeneration potential. Yet, the mystery remains about why this eisegetically Revolutionary event suddenly went wild, and permeated an entire culture of organisms. What was it about that environment that said, “Yes, that is precisely what we need and we are going to adopt our little cilia-selves to be fully embracing of this new, exotic “Not Me Information Pattern?”
I was reminded of all this while reading a homily entitled “Open and Shut Doors” by Unitarian Reverend Julian Clifford Jaynes, Psychology Professor Julian Jaynes’ father, who died when Julian Jr. was only two years old. Reverend Jaynes observes that our Species’ (and individual) “Open Door” successes and “Closed Door” disappointments are of equal information value. Open Doors to learning, inclusive of learning mathematics, are those that move us further along a sustainable confluence balance between our Left and Right hemispheres. “2 + 2 = 4. Let me count me fingers. Oh yes, that is True because it is experientially coded as Real.” In Jungian-compatible terms, a learning opportunity is one that attaches a symbol to an analogical set-pattern. Rationality is to numeral system development as Language is to communication system development, as “Predictability” is to learning system development; to learning to learn.
Open Doors, returning to Rev. Jaynes, are the experience of “power-with” the environment. A newly-cognized labeling confluence between Left and Right hemispheres normally trends downward as time passes, as new questions, newly perceivable anomalies emerge over time. It’s not that the exegetical Door closes, at least not right away; it’s more like the energy of a river emptying, eventually, into the wider definitions of a lake, or sea. Diverse levels of dissonance/stress emerge gradually. The promise of Einstein’s mid-life successes in what became Quantum Physics led to his subsequent two decades of business-as-usual gradually settling in.
Einstein’s subsequent twenty years of disappointment with failure to find his Golden Fleece Unified Field Theory is what Rev. Jaynes homiletically labels the “Shut Door” emotional economy. This information trend has its own reverse, or “transposed” peaks. A pattern of trials without the predicted, calculated, Left hemisphere Truth-search results in a slower evolutionary trend toward gradually increasing dissonance, but has its own softer peaks of confluent balance as yet another idea emerges, hope-filled, on the cognitive horizen. Thomas Edison describes his discovery pattern toward an efficient light bulb in this way.
Rev. Jaynes would have us compare these “two disappointments…the disappointment that follows success [Open Door] and the disappointment that follows failure [Shut Door]. They are practically the same.” (1922, p. 208) In both cases, the Left/Right hemisphere confluence/stress value economy is moving toward longer-term sustainable balance; neither unsustainably “peaked” at either extreme of Open or Shut. Buddhists and Taoists remind us that neither the Yang-excitement of passion (power-with), or the Yin-engorged serenity of unitive enlightenment (power-from-within) can be globally sustained in any species’ over the long term. Irrationality ensues sooner or later, has its place in the learning process, but is optimally understood when it is in balanced harmony with rationality.
Rev. Jaynes explains that Open and Shut Doors are “practically the same”, defined as “Both are educative; both are expansive in their power; both are prophetic of something larger and better beyond.” (pp. 208-209) This faith is substantively questioned by Julian Jaynes, his son, but his father roots his faith in the long-term balance of our Species’ Right and Left hemispheres. This faith is, for Rev. Jaynes, a Tradition-enriched Faith in the cooperative power-from-within of bicamerally balanced Homo Sapiens. The wise in our Species’ midst balance their Left hemisphere Truth satellites with what another Unitarian, Buckminster Fuller, referred to as our collective consciousness of “Spaceship Earth,” or, more geometrically, “Galactic orientation.” A bit later, William Thurston defines rational Universe-orientation as any logically consistent 8-fold, “Geometrization Conjecture.” Now Max Tegmark is at least Seconding that exegetical Reality Motion. A revolution in mathematics and metaphysics continues apace.
It was Rev. Jaynes’ Tradition-rooted faith (Right hemisphere dominant?) that optimized Peace with Justice, Goodness, and Beauty as our Species’ evolutionary purpose. This cognitive development is predicted to arrive in our Permacultured Paradise as our Left and Right hemispheres achieve Yang/Yin sustainably equipoised confluence. When we can see the Value of the chicken in the Power of the egg’s Code, and the potential Power of the chicken in the egg’s Value, then Doors start Opening, or at least revolving, regenerating.
Balanced stress/confluence boundary Doors are empowered to open fully, or close fully, by remaining ajar. These Boundary Doors are empowered by balanced binary-hinges to open in or out, up or down, back in time, or forward in time. While Doors are 3-dimensional, our Species’ power to perceive paradigms and symbols, including Doors, as potentially revolving gives us power-from-within to perceive 4-dimensionally, with an internally-consistent symbol system.
Theoretical Mathematicians would define this 4-dimensionality as a “Base 4” system, or Prime Group Relationship, assumption. A fusion, then fission, then fusion, then fission again, economy of Information system development appears to be ubiquitous across evolutionary models. This Binary-Coded information, then exformation, then information pattern may be visible in both Chemistry’s Table of Elements and in Biology’s RNA Codex. I am not sure if Max Tegmark’s Our Mathematical Universe recognizes the relevance of Group Theory to his primary Hypothesis: our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.
The Left hemisphere’s value for Hope is expressed as the expectation that Yang/Yin balance, neither overly Yin-expressed “Open” or too Yang-expressed “Closed,” is sustained as a permacultured steady-state system. In other words, the Left hemisphere’s “Hope” value for Truth-through-discovery continues to evolve toward optimal confluence with the older Right hemisphere’s enculturated memory consciousness. This consciousness is emotively “Faith”-resonant with holistic Justice/Peace, Goodness, and Beauty. Accessing Information encoded in RNA, inherited through our generations, the Left-hemisphere is most likely to recognize Truth-optimization values upon perceiving richly resonant, balanced proportion analogy patterns in the Information System’s “Control Unit.” “Oh yes, I get it, the Solar System could look like a spinning toy Top if we were to conceive the Black Hole Prime Spin-Axis as a polarized Exformed still-state, rather than just any old randomly placed Black Hole.”
When an Information Boundary revolving Door iterates, binary-hinged as +/- mutually-defining, then the potential for revolutionary “sync” is optimized at the Species, and individual, level: the Right-brained goodness value (Faith) and the Left-brained truth value (Hope), synaptically (mutually) trigger, thereby increasing our global power-from-within potential for future integrity, love, learning to learn, prediction, and expectation. All of these are included in Fuller’s rich definition of “Synergy.”
This admittedly tradition-rich, exegetical, Right hemisphere dominant hypothesis is cognitively rooted in a Prime Relationship, where Right hemisphere values translate Left hemisphere experience, defining Right hemisphere cognition, as “me” defines “I” defines mutually-defining self-awareness, and Yin defines “Yang” defines Tao. It gets tricky, though, transliterating between the Right-brain’s Base 4² Code System and the Left-brain’s Base 12 duodecimal temporal-function System. Plenty of room for things to go autistic and dissonant in that mapping process, especially as we re-approach Left/Right Hemisphere bicameral balance.
Should this Jaynesian trans-generational and exegetical hypothesis have predictive and explanatory analogical merit, then we would expect, with Fuller, that the historical-cultural gradual trend toward algebraic systems as our normative calculation structure is largely played out. It is now trending toward a blind-alley metric-system speciation. This is a way of thinking about math that is culturally expressed as “enumeration” rather than its more deeply rooted, mutually perpetuating, Prime Relationship as Tao. In a Tao-Vectored Universe, “0” might be cognized as equipoised form (Yang) OVER pattern-function (Yin). For an optimized internally-consistent metric language, the Prime Root Assumption is the verb of mutually-defining iteration between polarities; not any noun, or numeral. To Descartes we cooperatively respond, “Yes, but there is no symbol “think” unless “I AM” is equally True/Real, by mutual (not unilateral) definition. I think, therefore I AM, therefore I think.” We are back at the chicken and egg paradox, but resolved under the (0) Core Vector OVER Binary Prime Relationship Assumption.
Going further out on this intricately latticed limb, let us hypothesize that our Species’ “power from within,” transposes as “within power,” and reiterates as “therefore, ‘without’ power.” This reflective Information Theory reaches back to Proto-Indian-European (PIE) wisdom, “As within, so without” and “as without, so within.” In Information Language, this translates as a Prime Tao=Trinity: +1/-0 = [1 + (-1) = 0], therefore [0 = 1 + (-1)]. There can be no language, no cognition, without at least one Prime Relationship (Root). This mathematical observation goes back at least as far as Pythagoras and remained obvious through Taoism, Buddhism, Judaism, Pythagoras, Christianity, Ptolemy, and the early evolution of Islam. This is math history we are talking about here, the implicated order of Information history, perhaps mixing my metaphors. But, as I said, it all gets very intricate, dense, reflective, iterative, confusing, when thinking about Communication Theory.
Speaking of confusing gumption traps, let’s see what it looks like if we go back to when this developing binary octave of Information still seemed like a viable “Exegetical Hypothesis” to me, and see if we can further enrich the analogical layers with what has come to awareness in the interim:
Level A: Left Hemisphere
Eisegetic Experience, “The strategic communicator thrives on new information.” (Norton and Brenders, p. 227)
Samuel Norton’s “Purgation.”
Physics: Model of Elementary Particles (MEP), -(0) Higgs Boson-Implicated
Chemistry, Periodic Table: 119 UUC [Aeryllium]
Information Systems Theory: -(0) Exformation (e.g. imagine the Prime Relationship frequencies in a Hydrogen Atom, but in reverse, so that 1 Q-Bit of Information is fusing inwardly (backward in temporal-function).
Level B: Right Hemisphere—Fractal Iteration
Exegetic Control, “The strategic communicator controls the enthymematic process.”
Samuel Norton refers to this as “Sublimation”. A fractal of potentiated Enthymematic Information within a Binary “Transfer-Event”.
Physics: MEP +(0) Higgs Boson-Explicated
Chemistry, Periodic Table: 120 UUU [-(Aeryllium)]
Information Systems Theory: +(0) Information Q-Bit = +/- Prime Relationship Core Vector and “Field,” or Manifold, in the Geometric Group Theory paradigm. A potentiated, or implicate-only, map or Code; appropriate metaphors for STEM paradigms, so long as we all keep in mind that one person’s “map” is another person’s “mess” until we get better at translating our metrics across diverse Information Processors.
Stage C:
Ripley: Calcination
Euler/Fuller: Visual, noticing
Jaynes: Intentionalization
Norton/Brenders: Enthymematic Communication [between environment and “self”] A person fills in premises in a way that makes sense to the self.
Physics: MEP gluon
Periodic Table: Hydrogen 1, primordial gas, excited state
Information Systems Theory, 16-Base Code Assumption/12-Base Polynomial=NonPolynomial Assumption:
-1 Q-Bit [Exformation Trend, backward in Time] = (0) Core Vector/Polar-Binary Symmetry = Prime Relationship
Stage D:
Ripley: Solution/Dissolution
Euler/Fuller: Radiant energy (coming apart)
Jaynes: Modification [homogenous, Right hemisphere, Old Brain, pattern search], comparison range of cognition
Norton/Brenders: Prima Facie Validity, A person accepts the validity of [without] messages.
Physics: MEP photon
Periodic Table: Helium 2
Bianchi: I, center R³
Thurston: S³
Information System Theory: () Core Vector/Polarity = +1 Q-Bit/-1 = (0) Q-Bit
Stage E:
Ripley: Separation
Euler/Fuller: Differentiated [pattern homology]
Jaynes: Commands, differentiated between + and (-)
Norton/Brenders: Prior Dependence: The premises structure present understanding.
Physics: MEP down
Periodic Table: Lithium 3, alkali metal, lustrous silver quickly corroding to black
Bianchi: II, center R
Thurston: E³
Information System Theory: -,(),+, where (-) = 50% NonPolynomial and (+) = 50%, left to right, respectively
Stage F: FRACTAL
Ripley: Conjunction
Euler/Gibbs/Fuller: Locally superficial/Internal—They come together in vertexial bonding
Jaynes: Life Nouns [within pattern fusion between Left hemisphere “noticing” and Right hemisphere “functional pattern recognition”]
Norton/Brenders: Idiosyncratic Understanding, enhances the capacity to create an enthymematic response.
Physics: MEP up
Periodic Table: Beryllium 4, short-lived, synthesized in stars, transparent boundary substance, neutron reflector and moderator. Used by scientists as an Information medium.
Bianchi: III, center R
Thurston: H³
Information System Theory: -1 Q-Bit, () Q-Bit, +1 Q-Bit/4-Base Equivalency Exponent for metrically translating 16-Base into 12-Base duodecimal, and back again, without losing Information through dissonance; thereby optimizing Continuous Quality Improvement for Information recognition across Processors, Universal u/v Prime Relationship Coding (see Miller, Table 4.1, p. 94, for example).
Stage G:
Ripley: Putrefaction
Euler/Fuller: Implication
Jaynes: Thing Nouns [without pattern hypothesis]
Norton/Brenders: Sufficient Similarity, to allow pragmatic consequences [in future without experiences]
Physics: MEP W-boson
Periodic Table: Boron 5, crystal structure
Bianchi: IV, center -1
Thurston: S² x R
Stage A:
Ripley: Congelation
Euler/Gibbs/Fuller: Mass attraction, potentially directional and descriptive, and kinetically [without/within homologous pattern] active
Jaynes: Names [at the community level, “memes”]
Norton/Brenders: Narcissistic Strength, The strategic communicator uses what the self idiosyncratically knows.
Physics: MEP Z-boson
Periodic Table: Carbon 6, basis of all organic life
Bianchi: V, center +/-1
Thurston: H² x R
Level B: Left Hemisphere
“Existential Excitement, The strategic communicator thrives on new information.” (p. 227)
But, recall, this is a full octave above Samuel Norton’s Purgation stage. Christians call this upper edge of the seasonal octave, just before a new era of Hope, Advent and Lent.
Ripley: Cobation
Physics: MEP electron
Periodic Table: Nitrogen 7, occurs in all organisms, primarily as amino acids, protein “messengers”, hexagonal crystal structure
Bianchi: VI, group of order 2
Thurston: SL(2,R)
Level C: Right Hemisphere—Double Fractal Iteration
“Strategic Control, The strategic communicator controls the enthymematic process.”
A double fractal of successful Enthymematic Information exchange between Right and Left Hemispheres later, George Ripley calls this stage “Sublimation.”
Ripley: Sublimation
Physics: MEP electron neutrino
Periodic Table: Oxygen 8, blue, di-oxygen is a diatonic gas not accessible to human senses
Bianchi: VII, non-zero reals group
Level D/A: Left-Yang
Ripley: Fermentation
Norton and Brenders: Complexity, “…knowledge facilitates enthymematic control.”
Physics: MEP strange
Periodic Table: Flourine 9, light, binary functional only, most synaptically reactive compound, iridescent in darkness, largest use of elemental fluorine is uranium enrichment
Bianchi: VII, center Z
Thurston: Nilmanifold: Heisenburg group
Level E/B: Right-Yin
Ripley: Exaltation
Norton and Brenders: Gestalt Formation, “Individuals process all pertinent information to create a meaningful whole.” Also known, perhaps, as meme formation.
Physics: MEP charm
Periodic Table: Ne 10
Bianchi: VIII, center Z
Thurston: Solvmanifold
Level F: Left-Yang
Ripley: Multiplication
Norton and Brenders: Robust Expectations, “Consistently recurring style signals create robust expectations about communicative behavior.”
Physics: MEP muon
Periodic Table Na 11
Bianchi: Uniqueness
Level G: Right-Yin
Ripley: Projection
Norton and Brenders: Self-Discovery, “depends on making connections.”
Physics: MEP muon neutrino
Periodic Table: Mg 12
Level A: Left-Yang
Norton and Brenders: Self-Definition, “The person ultimately defines the self for the self.”
Physics: MEP tau [Tao-Explicate]
RNA: Tryptonphan trp, UGG
Periodic Table: AI 13
Level B: Right-Yin
Norton and Brenders: Reciprocal Realization, “Identities emerge from reciprocal negotiation.” [cooperative and mutually-defined identity of any “Set”—as perceived from within—implicated, implied]
Physics: MEP tau neutrino [Tao-Implicate]
RNA: STOP codon UGA
Periodic Table: Si 14
Level C-: Yang ENERGY
Norton and Brenders: “The self conserves its form through interpretation of information.”
Physics: MEP bottom
RNA: STOP codon UAG
Periodic Table: Phosphorous 15, emits faint glow when first exposed to oxygen, component of RNA and cell membranes, fuel for plants
Level C+: Yin TEMPORAL FUNCTION
Norton and Brenders: Flexibility, “Enthymemetic complexity gives the individual flexibility.”
Physics: MEP top
RNA: STOP codon UAA
Periodic Table: Sulfur 16, polyhedron, fuel for plants, indigenous to all proteins, essential for all organic systems. Sulfur compounds serve as both fuels and oxygen-alternative materials for simple organisms
The first thing I notice is that, if we define the “Left Hemisphere” as Yang and the “Right Hemisphere” as Yin, then, within any one iterative step, Yang and Yin are bi-polar “opposed” and “transitive” or transitionally-mutually-defining perspectives. As we transition from the Left to the Right perspective, we move from the polarity of potentiality to the polarity of fulfillment. They define each other. To the extent that Level B is true, Level C is not true, and vice versa. It is in this sense of their binary and temporally sequential frequencies that we find overall Yang/Yin equipoise, as a Binary Information Loop. To see the loop simultaneously, you have to step without. The “Me” perspective is always a Level C: without, or Polynomial, or (+). In RNA, we call this Level C+ “Basic” OVER Level U+/- Polar Relationship.
One of my favorite pre-school stories was The Ugly Duckling, Hans Christian Andersen. Part of my fascination was imagining what the Swan’s story would have been like if she had never gazed into the water and seen her own reflection. Until that time, she assumed she was a Duck. But, when she saw herself, she instantly knew that what she had Coded as “Duck” did not fit with her “Not-Duck” ugly reflection. Rather than seeing herself as a cute little swan toddler, perhaps a bit big for her age, at that moment in time, all she could see was ugly duckling. Saying that “C” RNA Code is both “Basic” and the opposite polarity of “U” is like the Swan as “C” aware that she is also not just a Not-Duck; however true, but insignificant (implicated) as Information, the double negative may be.
The more obvious parallels between the Swan’s formative years, becoming aware that “different” doesn’t mean “beautiful,” and my own takes my own story up through about age 10. That was when my mother, and teacher, in principal, indirectly, let me know that I most definitely was not a Duck.
The RNA “C/U” Code may be analogous to what Hewson Swift defined as “C-Value”, “the amount of DNA that was characteristic of a particular genotype.” (Bennett and Leitch, 2005) Swift chose “C” to stand for ‘constant’, as influenced, in turn by Vendrely and Vendrely, noting a “remarkable constancy in the nuclear DNA content of all the cells in all the individuals within a given animal species.” (1948) While the metric “C-Value” varies by species, it has a “Basic” frequency value within the DNA Codon of each species. Recognizing this pattern within each RNA “Basic”, from without, is Q-Bit Stage B/C. When we stand in this without position, as binarily opposed to the within-scale-community perspective, then Swift’s “C-Value” discovery could be described as the Swan discovering that although she and her duck-community all derived from an egg, her egg’s glia was the same as that of a Duck, but her protein frequencies were different from theirs in a way that was anomalous to the frequency diversity between any two “Duck” eggs. And, as Bob Merrill wrote, A chicken or a duck is a mistake, when you do Swan Lake.(Funny Girl)
When I was 14, I learned:
A: I am a queer duck
B: Nobody likes a queer duck
C: Therefore, Nobody likes “me.”
D: Replication Value: Not so good.
Problem: Exegetical Reality is not congruent with Eisegetical Self-Hypothesis as True: I am too good—what’s wrong with you people?
Day 5
It’s Thursday early-afternoon. My partner had yesterday and today off from work. It’s good to have him around. He relaxes a little; enjoys the kids more, and they him, I hope.
I spent some time last evening with Percy Shelley’s poetry. It’s interesting. When I read about Shelley, his biography, I think I will recognize myself in his poetry. I see parallels in his life trajectory and my own. Many differences, too, of course; but those I assumed would be less apparent because, well…, because he was a “Poet.” Yet, when I actually read what he wrote, I could appreciate it as a “classic” Literature art-form no more, I think, than Shakespeare.
Shelley didn’t teach me anything about myself, or about my world, or about his world that I didn’t already expect. There were no surprises of self-recognition. So I guess I certainly expected something more, setting the standard high, but why? Because he had an anomalous genius, because he didn’t “fit in,” because he wasn’t a household name during his lifetime, because he was inspired by the genius of his friends and family, because he was a brilliant lover of Language, of linguistics, of words, of cultural expression, of beauty, but also of what he understood as “goodness.”
Perhaps I thought I would see myself differently more because of the way his wife, Mary, wanted her tragically-lost lover to be remembered, the way she knew him. As it turns out, I think I identify more with Mary Shelley’s mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, perhaps The original Western Hemisphere Feminist, at least a generation ahead of her time, and, at the end of her time, may have felt that it was her husband who was her only appreciative “public audience.” Her stage, like Percy Shelley’s, was significantly smaller than was the case post-humously, a generation later.
In a Time-Warped sort of way, the incongruity of “Wollstonecraft” having a disproportionately high Species’-level mental space a generation after her death, compared to during her own lifetime, in Kuhnian and Darwinian terms, illustrates the difference between thinking we know when a “Speciation” cultural event has begun, and knowing we can culturally, historically, and therefore “exegetically” document that a Speciation cultural event has begun. It has to take at least one gene-ration in the cultural meme-DNA, if you will.
That Wollstonecraft was ahead of her time, in hindsight, we now recognize as being precociously astute about how to optimize the true value of all women, everywhere. That her particular wisdom was aligned with the more marginalized of our bi-genetic species, rather than the dominant power-gender, only supports the thesis that she was more prophetically wise than self-serving. Had she been thinking primarily of her own comfort, it would have been much easier, and certainly a noble enterprise, to invest all her energy in supporting her husband’s work in political philosophy.
Ironic, isn’t it, that by taking the “road less traveled,” Wollstonecraft turned out to have a larger influence on political philosophy than did her far more illustrious (at the time) partner, William Godwin?
Note to self: Given the internet, is it still true that it takes a generation, minimally, to document cultural “Speciation?” Probably so, but “generation” of what? Certainly not a human biological generation–not any more. Welcome to synaptic Information regeneration, where the potential for cultural speciation has changed for the younger half of our cultural paradigm-holders, the Transition Generation, than for the older-half, we Elders.
I wonder if High-Functioning Autism, and its relatives, already “knows” something at the DNA level that is less apparent to those not of the Transition Generation. Like, perhaps, something about 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-dimensional binary Information “mental space”, for example. And, maybe something about cooperative economies, optimized sustainable-regenerative values, self-perpetuating synaptic “Revolutions.” Perhaps for some among them Time is more explicated at higher frequencies of sight and sound, where it becomes less linear, and more rhythmic, like breathing Non-Polynomial Information frequencies in at a cooler, slower speed; and breathing Polynomial Information out at a warmer, faster speed—more like the surf, the reverse of our normal at-rest comparative breathing frequencies. More orgasmic; less still. It would drive anyone nuts to think he lived in a world where it was “normal” not to be able to see and hear such curiously diverse Information patterns.
This Thursday morning I woke up with one of those elliptical drawings they slapped over the Pacific Ocean part of the 3-dimensional map (because there was nothing of Information value for “mapping” in the middle of the Pacific Ocean) that looked like a stretched out figure-8. I think it was something to do with the earth’s orbit around the sun, and/or maybe the seasonal zones in relation to Earth’s orbit. I never paid much attention to it, truthfully. But in my dream I had been trying to fit midnight mid-top of the figure 8, swooping down to noon right in the central vector of the “8”, then continuing at a slightly slower pace back to midnight on the southern face of the 8. At that point, you would have a fairly well-developed hypothesis of what to expect the next day, right? Except what if the first quarter of the carefully drawn, 2nd-grade “correct” order, 8 is merely the Physical Prime unfolding of a +/- arc of energy, unfolding to create a symmetric concave/convex S, waiting, like the Swan for enlightenment, recognizing that a transposed Metaphysical Map image would adding the second, upside-down S, to form one Crazy 8.
Probably not a coincidence, the plodding pace of the first S, compared to the recombinant, revolutionary second half Zeta-S.
Day 6
Thursday, and again this Friday morning I added the physics, chemistry, and math paradigms to the octave stages above. Before I finished I was fairly sure they weren’t lined up accurately. The implicate-explicate, Right-Left dialogic is correct, I think. But, where I was beginning the octave within each paradigm was something of a crap shoot. While I am fairly sure that “Hydrogen” is “Basic” in some sense beyond that explored by Chemists, I don’t have an explicit theory about whether it should start at “C” or the perfect 5th above, just over a Fractal threshold, at “G”. And that’s just one example of what became a formidable “gumption trap.” What I thought would unfold in beautifully pristine, utterly predictable 8-frequency pattern Octave structures, probably does indeed do that, but comparing the octave pattern across divergent paradigms is a puzzle, without a robust metric Information-based Evolutionary Theory. I feel like I may be confusing the maturation of the egg with the maturation of the duck, or the decay of the duck with the maturation of the egg, or the decay of the egg with the maturation of the duck, which might somehow be the same thing. But, sadly, maybe not.
In cognitive learning Information Systems, we are working, I think, in 3-based dimensions, or frequencies: “Self” reflecting on a dyadic conversation between the Left-“I” hemisphere and the Right-“me” hemisphere. When I am thinking to myself, “I don’t understand this,” it is “I-self” talking to “me-Self” about “I”s inaptitude. Self is both Yin-Right and Yang-Left, analyzing the Bicameral Mind Space-Tree Game. But, if we choose a metric symbol Language that conjoins the 2-hemisphere perspective, then only the confluent dimension is symbolically reflected; all the Yang-irrational “0”s disappear from view. In our binary cognitive Universe, the Polynomial Universe only contains the “1”s as Physical Reality on the Right Hemisphere side, while the “0”s as Metaphysical potentiated “Reality” remain a grayscaled and ghostly “negative image” on the Left Hemisphere side.
For example, in triated Information Codes, where 0 = “Basic”, as in RNA, and perhaps some versions of the Table of Elements (Chemistry was never my friend), “UUU” translates, in Information Theory as (-), 0, (+), left-to-right positioned, using a 4-Base metric scale assumption. Basically ( pun childishly intended) 0 = “Basic” = “spatial” U. It operates like a binary-synergetic backdrop, exterior, “glia,” Manifold. The “U” is the Exformation “binary-structured system,” which is all too often confused with the Exformation “unstructured system.” It is not “U”nstructured; it is “B” structured, where “b” is the functional, or exponential, “numeral” base of any Information/Exformation Binary System. (-) and (+) “1” are temporal function space-holders; sequential ordered (-) before (+) within any one iterative loop. We always code the Metaphysical Egg (-1) in relation to the Metaphysical Chicken, or duck, (+1). In the Special Physical Information Case, we code a specific egg as (-) in relationship to its progeny, an individuated
This “spatial” Universe has a Natural order, I am beginning to believe, that operates only at the implicate-Right hemisphere level for me, although I seem to be very preoccupied about that amorphous reverse-image on the Left side. It’s like being very near-sighted with my left eye, but having perfect 20-20 through my right eye, or vice versa. Truly I do not know my right from my left hemisphere at least half the time. I continually pull on that left eye, when perhaps it is the right one that needs mastering for crisply-outlined self-understanding. I think I want to map explicate order over implicate fractal order.
I want to, need to, hope to, wish somebody would, develop a regenerative learning evolution “THEORY.” This would be a theory about how the Implicate level operates in 3-spatial/form dimensions (think of the “paper” in Fold Geometrics) and 2-temporal folding order dimensions, (+/-), for before and after. Where are those origami instructions when I need them? And what are the chances that origami derives from anything like “origin Game?” Because couldn’t an origin-folding Game be something like a Creative Learning to Learn Evolution Game?
After and before are mutually self-defining in any 1 cognitive moment. History predicts the future; the future explains history. As in the past, so in the future; and as in the future, so in the past of any one Moment/Manifold Boson, because, as I keep saying, as within, so without, and as without, so within.
Although well above my Theoretical Math pay-grade, I suspect that this is all some “Through the Looking Glass” non-dialogue confusion between “Space groups,” “Wallpaper groups,” in a “Dihedral group” binary Information Universe. Our Old Brain Right hemisphere has evolved following the simplest explanation for behavior patterns. The least complex prediction pattern has the highest frequency of “explanation.” Our collective RNA-based explanation code overlays a Non-Polynomial Set of “0”s. However, the field of “0”s accessible to the Left hemisphere is limited to those that are “sync” able with experiential frequency perception pattern “Real” Code. “0”, to have any “in-formational” value at all, may be a predicted, implied fractal metric in a 4-Base Field Assumption; or, symbolically speaking, perhaps even sacra-mentally speaking, “4.”
If all that complex guessing bears any relationship to coherence, then it may also be true that:
The proportional value of 1/3, in 3 dimensions, is equivalent to
The proportional value of 0/4, in 4 dimensions,
In any Binary Information, Rational-Only, Math System.
And, 1 is an Information holon (Boson) of 3, in 3 dimensions, as
0 is an Information Holon of 4, in 4 dimensions.
This entire project, now in its 6th day, feels increasingly surreal. Words like “practical application value” and “Theoretical significance value,” gravity and radiance cooperative and oscillating frequency values, prediction and explanation, real v. virtual feel all jumbled around, somewhat playfully, but a tad too aggressively, staring into each others’ eyes. Perhaps it is time to play with what we do have, heuristically, and see if it flies, rather than spend another 2-decades, or whatever, articulating the Golden Fleece of a Unified Frequencies Theory.
Day 7
It’s Saturday morning. Daquan and I slept well, as did the whole family, I think. Having slept so well, perhaps I only project my peaceful dream-state onto the entire household, and universe, for that matter.
It promises to be one of those New England Autumn, full-color, full-sun, crisply radiant Saturdays, as the sun already eradiates the ochered, ambered, and fluorescent-filled green vibrant octaves of the tree tops, leaving their cooler, darker, trunks and roots in humus-drenched shadow. My family starts to quietly stir.
Apparently Daquan and I did take another “Night Flight”, however.
During a fairly short breathing-exercise induced meditation, it occurred to me that plasma is a rich frequency metaphor for Tao, or Life Force.We understand, from our neural research, that cognitive energy works radiantly and synaptically, like electric energy, but it is not electrical. It doesn’t have the charge-frequencies of electricity; it does have the energy frequencies of plasma. Plasma, like light and organic Bosons, is radiant energy unless, and until, it is boundaried, when it suddenly develops a flow pattern we associate with liquids. So, we call the cloud-light-vapor strings through our Universe, the most common of the four elements Universally, “plasma.”
Plasma without apparent boundaries is what we call “gas” or “air” when exterior to organic (living) systems. Plasma, like life, and electricity, and light, and energy, is radiantly-balanced, equipoised, or seeks to be, outside the confines of “Closed Doors,” or boundaries. It is a natural law, if you will, that “nature abhors a vacuum.” This is true for high frequency systems, as it is for low frequency systems. Boundaries have a frequency depressing effect on plasma. The tighter the boundary, the lower the plasmatic frequency, until the exterior and interior walls meet, forming a new sinusoidal wave string of “single” frequency. Another way of saying the “string frequency pattern” is Core Vectored at (0)¹. That is the Information/plasma synaptically fused regenerative Big Bang Moment when plasma grows in a Fourier patterned sequence to temporally function in lower “liquid” flow frequencies.
This Boundaried plasma flow frequency emerges from a comparatively still-state, sinusoidal, flatline toward a “sawtooth” pulsating, revolving, rhythmic Ricci pattern. The plasma flow rhythm continues to emerge toward self-perpetuating “wave” oscillations. These waves are the “without” view of an interior Higgs Boson, concave, ciliated presentation. With regard to Q-Bit Information development, its what’s inside that counts.
When we remove lower frequency restraints, such as air, liquid, gravity, then the plasma frequency increases in freedom toward equilibrium, toward balance, and toward balanced synergy. Barriers are forms of Information restraint to radiance; which we might call Exformation, implicate, Metaphysical, Black Holes, depending on where we start our transliterative journey. Cognitive, and all plasma frequencies, default to equilibrium—“equal freedom” is equal synergy at ultrasonic Xray frequencies. That we can only perceive this plasma cognitive energy within its embodied, Boundaried, state is a limitation of our auditory and visual receptors, as a Species; but all scientific and frequency measurement evidence supports the assumption that releasing higher energy restraint barriers, like opening the Door of a vacuum Universe, synaptically restores the default toward higher frequency radiantly pulsating equilibrium. As it is with opening air vacuum chambers, so it is with plasmatic Information frequencies, life, mercury, rivers, opening in a champagne bottle tornado-popping rush toward oceans of comparatively unbounded radiance.
Enlightenment frequencies have their highs and lows, but the lows are probably higher than the former highs. “As within, so without” but more expansively, inclusively, synergetically equipoised, increasing the radiant freedom to synergize, within any Whole System. The underlying, implicate, Systemic frequency pattern does not change in the ultra- “still-state”; but our Species’ capacity to perceive and measure it does evaporate. We can “remember” it. We can predict its “explicate” pattern given various regenerative Moments in the past. But, in a state of plasma frequency radiantly pulsating synergy, the “implicate” potential of the Universe is not cognizable; it is the Metaphysical Manifold, with Non-Polynomial Roots bringing Power to evolving Values.
Corollary: Rich, dense “plasma engorged” analogies, running deeply through our shared evolutionary narrative, are the source of discovering inclusive cognitive freedom toward Species-level enlightened permaculture. Encultured permanence = permanent culture, just as permanent culture = encultured permanence, where to be encultured is to be informed, using Continuous Value Improvement evolutionary design standards for defining learning and progress and love.
If Yang and Yin frequencies are equal, then explicate function predicts implicate structure, and Polynomial equals Non-Polynomial Information in any Rational Universal (using Thurston’s Geometrization Conjecture) Moment, temporally speaking, and Manifold, Metaphysically speaking.
Day 8
It’s Sunday morning. I had the Saturday night from hell. Spencer in the kitchen full-light blaring, feeding, about midnight to 1. Ivy is awake by 3:15 and chatting away to herself in no uncertain, passionate terms to one or more of her invisible friends. I was up with her, and then again about an hour later. Within the next hour the doorbell rings and I’m thinking, Really, Dillen, you don’t have the mental staging to go through the garage?! Then it rings again. After too vociferously opening the door and using some not very nice language, it turns out that Spencer, always the paranoid, had locked the door to the garage when he was in the kitchen in the middle of the night. Grumbling a not-so-hearty apology I stormed back to Daquan’s bed where at least he remained blissfully, and enviably, asleep.
By 6, although still raven-black outside, Ivy, who has not the first clue about reading a clock, somehow emphatically and persistently knows that it’s the school day time to get up. This, despite my having dosed her with the upper-end of the medically recommended amount of Benadryl about 4:30; a dosage that would assuredly leave me comatose for a minimum of five hours. After reassuring her, at the top of my lungs, that I “DID NOT WANT TO HEAR A PEEP!!!!!!”, and giving her yet another dose of Benadryl admittedly sooner than I was sure was appropriate, I fed Daquan, changed his, and Ivy’s diapers, closed her bedroom door (a major no-no) because I could hear far more than a “peep,” made a cup of hot tea, went to the back deck as dawn emerged, and tried, with limited success, to calm down with some yoga and breathing exercise.
After all that, perhaps I am being somewhat defensive in wanting to say a good word for the spirituality of Lithium, important for balancing the Information frequencies of Beryllium, in my sometimes too passionate opinion. To me, Beryllium is an icon of what aboriginal peoples describe as the “heart path.” This is Yang-cognitive energy; very little Yin to add balance. Very transparent, fluid at the higher end of the Cognitive-through-Inductive Spectrum, emerging toward optimized Information value. This feels like a comfortable place for me, this upper end of the lower Beryllium frequencies. This path is my stronger stream. While it is the “road less taken” by Dreamwalkers and Story Tellers and Prophets, and Mystics, and Artists.
Toward the lowest end of our cognizable temporal frequencies, the Cognitive/Deductive Information path, not balanced with the “spirit path” can lapse into abulia—lack of affect, the appearance of having loss of volition, loss of “heart.” In Schizophrenic systems, abulia can manifest as “robotic.” Abulia is related to compulsive obsession, rhythmic, ritualistic behaviors; it is Wide Boundaried—so many low-frequency Doors are Open that human emotion itself moves from Angelman confluence, toward dormant stillness. Very low strung stuff is this Beryllium, the ocean of the stars.
Lithium is all about the synaptic spirit path. At first sight of Hydrogen, lithium flashes, then turns silvery. Over time it turns black, overexposed, not accessible, the revolutionary, urgent demand for the justice and goodness and beauty of the heart path can be treacherous. Both Inductive and Deductive, Lithium and Beryllium, are needed to sustain a wise heart path, but my personal weakness is on having sufficient value for my passion. I mistrust it too often. I do not listen to it, do not notice it, except when I run up against a Closed Door; Lithium after the synaptic flash. These Closed Door sightings are the moments that Beryllium notices, occasionally remembers, sweeps up, calmly looking for the hidden pattern in the Closed Door boundary moments of confusion and chaos.
Lithium’s highest, ultra, frequencies do not take Closed Doors too seriously, personally. Gumption trap black is also raven black; Closed Black Doors, as seen from the upper end of the Information/Exformation Spectrum, are simply Open Doors in reverse. They will open again when their revolving time has come. Wisdom’s Hydro-generative note sings of both Beryllium and Lithium and accepts both as natural and appropriate; and learns, develops, balanced Information/Exformation, at least potentially.
This morning I want to go way back to the very first mathematicians; the StoryTranslators. Traveling back into Right hemisphere dominant ancient aboriginal cultures, retreading Julian Jaynes’ knowledge path, it seems likely that the earliest tribal leaders using symbols to attempt to transfer information (Is what is in my head connectable to what is in your head?) were the ancestors of Native American “DreamWayTellers.” [an entirely eisegetical “hunch” about a more histo-culturally appropriate transliteration of “DreamWalkers.]Their communication role evolved into that of the “shaman” but probably began as the dancing, whistling, unusual-sound-making Scientists of their time, evolving into becoming the DreamWay-tellers, and “accountants.” To recount events and to account for their time and distance calculations, their quantities, their qualities, their forms and functions and frequencies, their values, their rhythm, their proportion, they evolved symbols. Many of the earliest symbols appear to have something to do with cultural value metrics; to recount, account, discount; all of which effort to communicate premised on the Assumption of a Prime Information Relationship pre-count synergetic iteration, that would be indicated as positive should they be able to get someone else to mimic her/his behavior. (Although I wonder if the caregivers of infants and toddlers might have derived this hypothesis first, coming to mind as the way their children learned from each other and from adult caregivers.) The earliest symbols were probably in reference to those things that seemed to the primordial InformationStoryTranslators to be most socially significant—quality (touch, smell, auditory, visual re-enactment motions and proportion and speed/rhythm) and power statements.
Truth, then as now, was most Abundantly [mid-octave Q-Bit Values are optimized on any Binary Manifold as (0) Core Vector) embedded in the heart-root of inclusive (optimized) Goodness and Beauty and Power Values. Everyone in the Tribe could experience the value of a beautiful sunrise, and iridescent twilight, then fire, and associated smoke. Where the Information Transliteration Manifold researchers would first find their moderately diverse/highly confluent capacity to agree would be in discerning between eisegetical approximations of proportion, both spatial and temporal. The Tribes’ first language-symbol Information-based boundary issues were, perhaps, about justly proportioned access to what they all agreed was, in itself, Good/Bad and Attractive/Repellant (= Exegetically-Established as POWER [both radiant (-) and magnetic (+)], meeting Permacultural Value CVI Standards of Equivalency). Recounting these accounting disputes would keep the Transliterating mathematicians stressed to the limits of their understanding from our earliest proto-history, right up to today.
I wonder if Ivy’s struggle with her world may boil down to an accounting dispute between her Right and Left hemispheres. Her RNA Code development was deprived of oxygen and essential nutrients at a critical early moment in her brain incubation stage. Her socio-emotional and her InformationProcessor development is arrested, corroded, too “flat-line” to easily discern the Abundance Value mid-range between each Rhetorical Boson Moment. Either everything is all Positive or it is all Negative and she has difficulty accurately deciphering, and therefore re-membering, which is which. Hence, oppositional behaviors include not only her emotional dimension, but also her linguistic, spatial, and temporal. It would not be particularly significant as “valuable Information” to her whether she was the first one to make contact or if I am, if it doesn’t feel friendly, then I better defend myself, because the one thing I do know from too much experience, once the environment starts to turn on me, ain’t nobody gonna be there for me!. Interesting, though, if I raise my arm with an open hand above my head, looking her in the eyes, she will ALWAYS stop whatever aggressive behavior she has initiated, and flinch while turning her visual attention from my face to looking ominously up at my arm; she always chooses flight over fight, if I can find ways to slow her temporal frequency down, away from panic mode, and into premonition mode. I just need to give her enough time to “fly” or “flinch.”
Yesterday afternoon I became immersed in an on-line conversation about how to assure ourselves of optimizing spiritual power values. While the answer seems both obvious and highly redundant to me, easily summarized in recognizing that the Golden Rule and the Golden Ratio are mutually optimized as “Self” and “Other” defining Prime Relationship. All of us tend to lean a bit heavily on the Yin-side of value cognition. While there is good diversity in this group, we did self-select because of unusual interest in spiritual knowledge, spiritual evolution. Lovers, yes; some more than others. But, Learners all. In retrospect, I can see a pattern emerging in that conversation. Spiritual path Right-brainers tend to see our Doors more Open when spiritual value is cognized as balancing “Quality” and “Power.” Spiritual path Left-brainers, leading with their Yang-foot, trend toward Open Door optimization values when the linguistics are about the “health” paradigm. Some of us tend to like the Land of Metaphysics, Sirius, while others prefer the Physics Information Research Lab. Vive la difference,but transliterating the Abundant Well-Being Spirituality Language with the Information Research Heuristic Assumption of Binary Prime Relationship Equivalency continues to be something of a challenge for all of us. Not just the original StoryTransliterators, not just the Ivys, not just the Intraspirituality Project.
The symbolic distinction between health quality values and power values is fairly recent, emerging with Left hemisphere dominance. Used to be, to have life was to have power, and vice versa. LifeSource, or WaySource was at least enough Power to persuade me that you have not entered the “still-state.” Wisdom keeps good health quality and proportionate Power Source well-sync-ed, mutually synergetic. I wish that the passion-power of my ValuesImprovementStory were more transparently iconic of the well-being-power of my Spirit Path, and vice versa. Then my own efforts to communicate effectively, wisely, would be better optimized. As Professor Jaynes preached, its all about using, by noticing, living, understanding, and sharing, rich, dense permacultured analogies. Commit to as within, so without, as without, so within. Take a stand with our permacultured heritage. But do it appropriately, within each Boson, by recognizing it as a reverse translation of the eternal-Moment Boson, as “before” temporally-reversed, so within “after.” If I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, does this Rhetorical Moment (however defined)express my commitment to my faith, based on all evidence of Metaphysics, that we are all in this together, with (0) Core Vector Abundance Values?
At the end of a too-long afternoon at the keyboard, the best I could come up with in this allegorical direction was a return to the Tree of Life:
Power within integrity discovers, and further enriches, the already profound StoryTradition, including analogies (esp. “Scripture”) that synergize, overlap, “map” onto each other; rather than the more mundane focus on the differences. The diversity of differences add beauty and fullness and nutrient goodness to our emergent Tree of Life; but do not divert us from the ancient-through-contemporary taproot, into the Universal seed symbolized by the Golden Ratio and the Golden Rule: “As without, so within; as within, so without; As before Valued, so after Empowered; As after Valued, so before Empowering.” What is “after” and what is “before” depends entirely on whether you choose to imagine yourself as a pollen-engorged blossom on the Tree, or as part of the Taproot Prime Relationship in the nutrient-rich Core-Vector Boson soil. But remember, if you choose one over the other, then you will continue to miss the Permaculture Forest for the Synergetically-Designed Tree.
Confucius called the “without” Tree Yang; the “within” Seeds Yin. David Bohm called the “without” the explicate order Forest; the “within” the implicate order Seeds.
But, before Confucius, and after Bohm, the Permacultural “power from within” Golden-iridescent Natural Core Truth remains, 1/0 = 0/1 = -1/0/+1; and P =NP, both spatially and temporally, where Polynomial = Information, and Non-Polynomial = Exformation [potentiated Information implicated in the Binary Prime Relationship (0) Core Vector Assumption: -1, 0/+1; 4-Base Numeric Q-Bit System].
This Synergizing Consciousness excludes no-one, and passionately celebrates the richness of all cultural diversity, throughout our Species history.
Perhaps if I had thought to start off with “Health within” I would have achieved more inclusive resonance. As it was, No Response. Clearly I have much to learn about how to accurately predict abundance.
As I advance into decrepitude, I am better at remembering my faith that “everyone is doing the best they can,” but perversely remain just as unlikely as ever to remember to include myself in that “everyone.” My Narrative issue isn’t so much about judging others as it is about not knowing how to respond to the appearance of Closed Doors. I definitely judge myself about anger, about “too much” negative passion, about not feeling sure about what is a proportionately “Good” response to a conflict about what demands my attention in this moment, about priorities within a specific context, about justice and peace for all.
My indicator for “disproportionate health-powered response” in the face of conflicting views about balanced proportion for my attention, when I feel compelled to spend MY Mornings! writing and Ivy feels compelled to want my immediate and undying attention, is when I am taking my little-“I,” my ego-self, my Yang-Left self, too seriously; I lose my sense of humor. I wonder if it is a coincidence, this expression, “taking myself too seriously”, when I recall that Sirius was the Home of the Gods. When my Yang-Passion self powers-over our shared Yin Self, I fail to see the absurdity of my current cognitive position. It’s just not funny, and I’m ticked off about it. Sure sign that my Sirius is out-of-alignment, which is not good for my health or our power+quality Value optimization. Not a good mental space for writing effectively about optimizing assured spiritual values in the midst of exegetically-held StorySystem (esp. “religious”ly-held) diversity. Perhaps if we all just remember to laugh at ourselves frequently, we could use that as an indicator that we are still immersed in a balanced and optimizing Narrative toward synergetic and Exegetic Reality.
Perhaps that’s part of what Jesus meant when he said he came to turn the world upside down, and to make the least powerful, the least healthy, the most powerful, the richest. As within, so without; but also, and always, as without, so within. Yang and Yin Values are most Abundant in proportionate iconic and mutually-transposing frequencies.
Gravity is to magnetism is to Yang-frequency ranges of Closed Door perception, as
Radiance is to magnetism is to Yin-frequency ranges of Open Door perception.
Our, and most especially my, failure to transpose this reverse-value frequency Boundary Issue feels significant, and yet disturbingly absurd: the value relationship between gravity and radiance, seen in reverse. Absurd enough to actually work with Ivy by responding to her “aggression” with drop-down-on-the-floor laughter?
I am painfully aware, on this full octave of metric system time-traveling, that Closed Doors remain at least mostly closed, impenetrable. At the same time, on this gloriously radiant Sunday morning, perhaps we have earned a day of rest from slogging through complexity. On a whim, I picked up my October 2013 Scientific American. Let’s see what we can learn.
Gordon Hazen, of Northwestern University, is responding to a June 2013 article entitled “Quantum Weirdness? It’s All in Your Mind,” by Hans Christian von Baeyer. He reminds us that this portrayal of QBism described “…the wave function as existing only as a mathematical tool employed by an observer to assign his or her personal belief that a quantum system will have a particular property.”
Let’s heuristically translate that statement into Bicameral Information language. An oscillating “wave” frequency is a metric tool for assigning proportional frequency probabilities to a 4-dimensionally defined system. Hazen’s language choice is Stage 1. My heuristic translation is Stage 2. Now it’s Hazen’s turn again, for Stage 3:
“But what about the famous two-slit experiment in which the wave function of an electron interferes with the portion of itself going through the other slit? Can my belief about which slit the electron went through interfere with itself?”
My Stage 4 response translates Hazen’s question as:
What about the two-slit experience in which the oscillating frequency pattern is perceived as disrupting while traveling through the 2 slits? Can my prediction about the comparative frequency probabilities of this bifurcated pattern transition interfere with itself?
Von Baeyer replies, Stage 5:
“Qbists…differ from other interpreters of quantum mechanics in their insistence that the wave function itself resides only in the agent’s mind and that it does not describe the actual path of the electron. It is a calculational device for determining the betting odds the agent should assign for the outcomes of future experiments to detect the electron and is no more substantial than the number on a laundry ticket.”
My translation of Von Baeyer’s reply, Stage 6:
Qbists hypothesize that a predictable frequency pattern trend describes a 4-dimensionally perceived electron trajectory trend event. These frequency pattern trends are heuristically assigned to future measurement events for further proportional refinement.
My translation is incommensurable with Von Baeyer’s final phrase, “and is no more substantial than the number on a laundry ticket.” However, if he had said, instead, “and is no more or less numerically significant than any number on a frequency proportioned scale, with a range from 0% to 100%,” then I would have been well on my way to further, Stage 7, translational mapping. As it is, I’m not sure what to think. Is this an Open Door or a Closed Door? I’m leaning toward the probability that a further, double-bind, level of iteration could be more successful than not; yet probably not entirely Open or Closed.
Moving on, on p. 14, we have “Climate in the Classroom: Evolution is not the only scientific idea being kept out of the curriculum,” by Eugenie C Scott and Minda Berbeco.
This is all very interesting. The polarized positions are between the scientific paradigm that “natural selection” is sufficient to explain the evolution of organic systems, pitched against a teleological paradigm that “intelligent design”, but not “natural selection”, is sufficient to explain the evolution of systems.
Wait a minute. When did intelligence become unnatural and when did selection become undesigned? This would all be very confusing to Origen, Muhammad, on through the 16th century. Of course intelligence was how one discovered the natural order, and of course nature wasn’t stupidly undesigned, or there would be no such thing as “nature.” What troubled Darwin, and continues to plague evolutionary understanding has been the apparent relationship between “selection” and “design.” At least for speciation events, the selection process appears to be at such a spontaneously accelerated pace that “business-as-usual” time frequencies are not equal to Bayesian frequency predictions. There is something suspiciously “design-accelerated”, or at least non-random about speciation. Regenerative revolutions have “ultra-rational” temporal-frequency characteristics; not “business-as usual” Bayesian, and most emphatically not their opposite extreme: irrational, random, slow-trend, heavy, the lights are on but nobody’s home frequencies.
Natural selection lighting systems act like a geometric unfold-pattern in our Tree of Life’s map, unveiling a new speciation branch. On the other hand, there is no Exegetically Orthodox unfold-pattern Narrative (this isn’t exactly origami in reverse). The underlying map could be pristinely flat or a randomly wadded up ball, or something in between. Fuller believed the underlying map could be unfailingly predicted by expecting Synergetic Fractal Design, using a (0) Core Prime Relationship Vector.
For reasons that have already floated by and through during this past octave, I believe that evolutionary trajectories, in both the explicated universe of sensory-based experience, and in the implicated “mental space” universe of cognitive experience, naturally gravitate toward high-confluent frequencies, and naturally radiate toward even higher-confluent frequencies. I also believe that gravitation toward center does not naturally exclude radiant spin-health-power harmonious Relationship around this confluent center.
Radiant diversity is to speciated core frequencies as electrons are to neutrons within any mathematical Set, evolutionary Paradigm, Natural Law Tradition. As Pope Francis says, if I may allegorize, gender-identified diversity is compatible with the level of gravitational weight in the evolving Re-Legein [Creation Story Re-Incarnating] Community , except it has become so by unnatural design, at great nutritional cost, stupidly retarding our Species’ spin optimization trajectory.
Day 9
It’s Columbus Day, Monday morning. I woke up with a nearly full-blown “legend” in my head. This is unprecedented. A few weeks ago something rather like this happened when Daquan sat bolt-upright and started softly murmuring and rocking at 5 AM, but that was a song, a requiem, more precisely, with nearly complete melody and lyrics, which I subsequently entitled “We Long to Fly Forever.” But, this is something quite different.
As with many of my apparent “Night Flight” tangents, it feels like it fits in with last week’s ruminations about incommensurability and authentically “catholic” values, and our whole confusion over what Information to take away from apparently Open and/or Closed Doors. Yet why, when, or how it fits in I cannot see from this side, it is only after I write it out and then look back at it that I usually find a pattern; or at least not simply random chaos. I wouldn’t go so far as to use the phrase “intelligent design,” but I would be comfortable with “natural selection.” Sometimes, later, when I can fill in the implied gaps, I can discover artifacts of intelligence patterns in the design.
An Outistic Catholic Legend
Once upon a time, maybe about 25-30 years ago, there lived a very queer Dr. Rat who went about terrorizing a good deal of Europe on a more-or-less full-time basis. On the other hand, he sometimes sailed around the Earth, thin, stringy greywhite hair flying, stinking of crusty sperm, and vitriolic self-hatred, throughout the planet.
This story begins with Dr. Rat’s brief visit to Boston, invited by one of his lesser minions, Dr. Law, to spread Rat’s curious Antithesis Doctrine of Self-Hatred. The Antithesis Doctrine essentially reverses the Golden Rule, in a macabre transposition of natural order. Rat encouraged everyone throughout the Community to “Never do unto others as you would have them not do to you.” He was particularly poisonous in the area of genital behavior. Widely suspected among same-sex couplers as being “one of them,” Rat perversely seemed to go out of his way to publicly ostracize them from the Community. That was consistent with his self-hatred. So, in a reverse, Louis Carrollian “Looking Glass” kind of way, Rat was consistentlly practicing what he poisonously preached.
To culminate the esteemed Dr. Rat’s visit to Boston, Dr. Law decided to host a quiet, lushly appointed, soiree in his mansion. As was typical of these nocturnal events, Law’s Secretary relied on Seminarians, living next door, to come over and help serve cocktails, etc. Whatever the guests desired.
For this self-congratulatory feast, Seminarian Soloman’s name had been drawn from the hat, as somehow he had known it would be, to serve Law’s guests. Not that Soloman, a rather avid member of the same-sex couplers population, had any desire to be in the same room with either Dr. Rat or Dr. Law, but he did rather desperately need the cash. Then too, he had heard a grapevine twisted rumor that had given him a glimpse of an idea about how he might shut down Dr. Rat’s Antithesis Reign of Terror, should push ever evolve to shove. He had heard that a preferred part of Dr. Rat’s private mating ritual involved a video camera, and a less preferred part was Rat’s rather careless habit of falling promptly to sleep after a too-long evening of wine and pleasure.
And so events unfolded that dark night of candle-lit extravagance, paid for through the too-generous tithes of the impoverished Faithful.
Soloman was nervously watching himself agree to help Dr. Rat with his coat check number problem, and duly noted the name and numbers required to respond to the raised-eyebrow, but unspoken, assignation. When dinner was over, without giving himself time to think too much about what he was doing, he took his $20 waiter payment, rushed back to the Seminary, changed into his best “after hours”, and rode the T to Rat’s nest, for that night.
Furtively entered, it quickly became clear that conversation was neither expected nor encouraged. The bed was not-too-dimly lit and clearly the after-party’s ritual was to take place upon that recorded stage, without wasting too much footage on preparation. Germanically efficient; munificently completed. There was another $20 on the night stand, which Soloman took, hotly thinking he had earned more, but more than comforted by the compact video tape secured in his leather jacket pocket. Dr. Rat continued his obliviously sonorous snore as the door quietly clicked behind Soloman’s retreating shadow.
Less than 20 years later Soloman was heartbroken when Dr. Rat was successful with his stacked-deck campaign to become Head Doctor 16. The prior decade had seen a nightmarish insinuation of Dr. Rat’s power over the Capital, seethingly present at the aging prelate’s right-hand, then bedside. Finally a reign that had started with such outstanding promise for social justice had autistically crumbled to an uncivil war between Tradition and the Antithesis.
The wealth of nations was crumbling and burning, while HD16 gleefully watched his grand vision unfold. It mattered not that his people were fleeing his global Community. This, after all, was precisely what he had predicted as a good and beautiful thing when he transposed the Golden Ratio’s rhythm, from “As without, so within; and as within, so without” to “As without, so without; and as within, so within.” The same-sexers, Natural Lawyers, Scientists and Mathematicians, the rabblish Researchers and Rationalists, the UltraSpiritualists, the entire “power-from-within” Movement were, in his eyes, self-proclaimed anathema. They voted with their feet, and their Closed Door pocketbooks.
HD16 didn’t need their money; he already had far too much of their own. He and his Black Hole Antithesis had already won, in his view. The only thing to do now was to hang on to his hoard, enjoy his ride on the backs of the self-marginalized, and wait for the Universe to collapse. He took perverse pleasure in his incessant I Told You So refrain.
Soloman had a different wisdom. Quietly, discreetly, he began looking for a different kind of leader. This proved to be difficult because the College of Doctors still breathing tended to not only be very old, but not very wise. Only the very oldest Elders, the large majority no longer breathing, had been appointed prior to the long influence of Dr. Rat, now HD16. Some of them would be good, but he needed someone younger. Someone who had somehow escaped Rat’s notice or influence. Someone from the outlier nations, with a reputation for humility, rather than pride, committed to including marginalized people, to the richness of diversity.
Eventually, and not so very long ago, hopefully in time, Soloman found Dr. Eagle, hiding out in the “Other,” Southern Hemisphere. This Eagle had some early science-research experience, and came from a long love of learning Tradition. His unpretentious trajectory had successfully joined power-with and power-over, suggesting, hinting at, the permacultured Father Sun/Sister Moon spirituality of a “power from within” Franciscan.
It was time to use the video tape’s hidden Medicine Power. Soloman made two copies of that video’s dark secret, and sent them to HD16’s Secretary, and to Dr. Eagle with the same note:
HD16 and Dr. Eagle:
Please discuss the enclosed.
I predict that one of you will choose to cut it in half, then retire in resplendent but rodent-stenched luxury with your Secretary, to have a leisurely feast on the fat of the land. Good riddance.
I fervently hope the other of you will join me in protecting this private matter by doing everything you can to restore health and truth and goodness and beauty to our catholic Tradition; gently reminding us “As without, so within; as within, so without.” I reclusively wish you, and our Gaia Community, the very best restoration of a Golden Rule, and hope you will signify your regenerative response by choosing to become HD1.
Soloman
And so they did.
Day 10
All afternoon yesterday, especially while wheeling Daquan, then Ivy, in the magenta magnum-wheeled stroller to get some exercise and do some consecutive, one-stroller-cloth-bag at a time, shopping, I was troubled by yesterday’s parable. What is the difference between an allegory, and a lie? If I released the Outistic Catholic Legend as a recounting of actual historical events, it would be a lie. I would be ostracized from any respectable publishing company for the remainder of my life—although perhaps exceptions are made for David Icke, and the genre of “conspiracy theories”. What is the difference between a “legend” and an intention to mislead? And what is the difference between an “allegory” and an intention to stereotype?
A mathematician named Sophus Lie (I am trying very hard here not to question the coincidental nature of his birth name, and what I am about to suggest regarding an application of his Group Theory), born 1842, in Norway, laid the foundation for a theory of continuous “transformation groups.” To over-simplify, continuous transformation groups are self-perpetuating, mutually-defining holonic binary relationships, that can either integrally evolve outward, or synergetically involute, if there is such a word. Perhaps a better way of expressing the implicate direction is as a fusing string infinitely collapsing toward (0) Core Vector. Fusing leads to propulsion, leads to fusing like a jelly fish crimping into a wafer to jet-balloon forward, or a frog folding her legs together, then sprawl-kicking outward.
To “involute” is to in-form. To “exvolute,” to sprawl out, is to ex-form, to add further linguistic mess to mayhem.
Regardless, Mr. Lie gave his last name to the mathematical term “LIE group.” A Lie Group is a set that is “differentiable” from set functions that are smooth structured. A different way of metaphorically describing the relationship between a Lie Group and its underlying “smooth structure” would be to say that the smooth structure must fully predict any exterior Boundary pattern. “As explicated without (exformed), so implicated within (informed); and vice-versa. It’s against the rules, a Lie, if the tire bulges out while the air in the tire presses in, and for the tire to bulge in where the air pushes out, unless you have a rupture. A rupture of this rule, proves there is a difference between the interior functional Information and the exterior Boundary structural Exformation.
A Lie Group does not enjoy non-anomalous binary relationship in its own skin. There is either a cancerous distortion of Information, or a vacuum pocket, a bubble, or Boson, of missing Information (Exformation). In Norton and Brenders’ Laws of Interaction, the relationship between the initial enthymematic Information-pattern proposal does not achieve full double-bind iterative status; High C Double-Fractal. Unlike the level of “Sublimation,” in George Ripley’s 12 Gates toward Transmutation, which derives from a “sublime” paradigm fusion with its purgative precursor; Lies do not lead to Sublime-frequency Truth, regardless of the number of mattressed dimensions I calculate to successfully cover that annoying pea.
Soloman’s story is intended to be read at two levels, in two binary-connected dimensions, but without confusing the metaphorical Information with the allegorical Exformation of creative license. As history, the story is a metaphor. As a cultural “Legend” expression, it is an allegory—logically, a metaphor holon within a metaphoric skin-structure, or Boundary.
When I sent this allegory to the National Enquirer, I did not mention that I have an M. Div. from St. John’s Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts, achieved as a seminarian during the early 1980s. I did explicitly state that no such videotape exists as far as I know. Why did I add the disclaimer No such tape,for real!, and why did I not add the potential evidence of “truth,” my waiter duty at Cardinal Law’s Boston mansion?
There is the not so small unpleasant business of exposing all of us to a nasty lawsuit, because the legal distinction between conspiracy to intentionally malign is based not only on the information that was disclosed but also on the question of liability for the exformation–what was not disclosed that a “reasonable person” would consider germane to the controversy at hand . Had I disclosed my actual biography as a not-so-young aspiring seminarian at the time and place of the Catholic Legend, gay, broke, with experience serving wine in Cardinal Law’s mansion, I would have been encouraging the National Enquirer to read my submission the only way they could read it and make a ton of money off from publishing it, as a historically-accurate (plausibly) metaphor. Why else would I send it to them, right?
However, the Legend’s moral/ethical lesson intent [Rhetorical Event, in Communications Theory] is not entirely dependent on its historical accuracy. I anticipated that my reader would identify with, “sync” with, Soloman imaginatively, expectantly, and hopefully. This is an “enthymematic expectation” on my part. If the reader does not step into my eisegetical (individualistic, subjective, heuristic) cultural “Truth” set, then there is no sync, no “Truth” Modifier response, in Jaynes’ theory of language acquisition. The Modifier “D” frequency in this proposed Information transaction remains merely implicated, potentiated, in my hopeful-of-exegetical “Orthodox Truth” evaluation by my reader [Information Receiver]. If I am culturally out-of-sync with the National Enquirer editor, then the editor might very well delete my submission with the thought, “Another paranoid-schizophrenic with too much time on his hands.”
And so she did.
In the editor’s mind, the Legend was relegated to the “Lie Group.” Probably joining a pile of submissions from conspiracy theorists, false prophets, and the larger set of people who confuse eisegetical insight with exegetically-accepted humor/enlightenment in our community’s cultural Commons. Within the Editor’s cultural gestalt, I was unsuccessful in my “meme” narrative proposal to connect with any valued-as-“True” cultural paradigm. Another version of the Problem of Incommensurable Information; also known herein as Exformation. People who confuse their Information with other people’s Exformation have been called a lot of names. Some of them are flattering, like Genius and Artist and Physicist and Rocket Scientist, Theoretical Cosmologist, but most of the names are disforming, disabling, dysfunctional, disturbed, even disgusted, like Schizophrenic, Bipolar, Autistic, Crazy, Insane, Mad, Angry, Sad, Suicidal, Depressed, Queer, Gay, Bitch, Anxious, Witch Doctor , Witch {period}. And some are sort of in-between dismissive and distant, such as Mystic, Prophet, Seer, Shaman, Wizard, Theologian, Philosopher, Theoretical Mathematician, Religious. Notice that the only obvious distinction between a Witch and a Wizard, other than Witch is culturally more pejorative than Wizard, is that it is more culturally suspect to be a weird woman than to be a weird man, in post-Industrial value-economies.
So, let’s go with the scenario that I sent the Outistic Catholic Legend to the National Enquirer because I needed money. I recognized the risks involved, but my calculation, as far out as I went into the future with my imagination, was at least a 50-50 chance of a “sync” with the Editor. Under that scenario, I’m disappointed that my phone isn’t melodiously confirming a “True” response. The Closed Door experience. What do I do with that?
Here, once again, I see a metaphorical relationship between Reverend Jaynes, the elder, and Professor Jaynes, the younger. In Professor Jaynes’ stage theory of language acquisition, the E Stage heuristically predicts my capacity to effectively distinguish between what my Information Reader will recognize as True and reject as False. Reverend Julian Clifford Jaynes exhorts us to recognize both Closed and Open Doors have information value. Whether I learn anything or not, depends on my willingness to understand this failure to “sync.” If I respond by thinking more strategically about my potential Editor audience, I might assume my silent phone is an invitation to search out another Door but one that is more likely to share my sub-cultural “Truth” narrative; present company hopefully included.
Dr. Rat was a rat. He smelled, looked, chewed, acted, and thought like a rat with rabies. He was exformed, disformed, uncomfortable in his own skin, with cancerous lesions of vitriol for those he could not be bothered to care for, and naturally abhorrent vacuity of theological and Scriptural “Reality” analysis. Other than that I’m not even sure his own mother liked him. I’m just sayin….not my favorite guy for leading any semblance of a healthy Re-Legein—CreationStory Sacramental System.
In a brief email exchange a couple of days ago, Muriel Strand, P.E., having just finished reading yet another entire book, The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory (Jesse Walker, 2013), deftly writes another of her “bottom-line” summaries: “it’s human nature to see conspiracies, to read meaning into patterns that may or may not be accidental. But when those conspiracies turn out to be true – from COINTELPRO to the NSA – the ambient level of paranoia rises.”
Not intending to be specifically germane to Ms. Strand’s communication about conspiracy, she automatically attaches a favored Hasidic adage to all her email messages; an adage that I appreciate: “If you are proved right, you accomplish little; but if you are proved wrong, you gain much: you learn the truth.”
My response didn’t even make it past the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) editor’s threshold for meriting general delivery:
“The ambient level of paranoia rises”
Very interesting and that makes sense to me, at some intuitive level. I wonder, also, if it is an insight that may, ironically, be connected to your Hasidic proverb of current choice.
I was reading the collected homilies of Julian Clifford Jaynes, the Right-brain/Left-brain Bicameral Mind Professor Julian Jaynes’ father, in which he reflects on the diverse learning trajectories our Species has (and we individually have) with regard to “Open Doors” and “Closed Doors.” Rev. Jaynes would challenge, politely, the Hasidic Proverb for distorting the Information value of being “wrong” v. “right.” He argues quite eloquently that their Information values are very precisely equal, at least potentially.
After a revolutionary Open Door experience (in this case, a documented-as-True conspiracy theory), we temporarily become a very active global nest of ants, looking at this newly-discovered pattern of events and “re-discovering” its pattern wherever we look, as the initial stage in what eventually settles down to the “business-as-usual” drone-work of comparing our shared experience against prior Species’ memory. By contrast, after knocking on a resistant Closed Door experience repeatedly, unable to re-enact the pattern experience hoped for, suspected, wondered about, doubted, perhaps even feared, individuals wander off to other things that seem more promising for our shared learning.
In this case, as well as the first, we tend to gradually re-emerge to a “maybe yes, maybe no” status, as a Species, because you never can predict when a Closed Door may Open. And, truth be told, we often discover that there are different ways of looking at history, motives of individuals, level of awareness and prescience as they were acting. Over time, what surprises as a “conspiracy” tends to slip into a door that is somewhere between wide-Open conspiracy, and Closed and Locked Potential-Information Chaos.
Thomas Kuhn wisely warns us of the ongoing “Problem of Incommensurability.” What I know now isn’t exactly what I knew yesterday, or what I will know tomorrow. What we, as a Species, know as Exegetical Truth today, is not necessarily what we knew as Exegetical Truth in the past, or in the future.
I imagine Ms. Sandy Heierbacher, a bright, focused, “Editor” reading my too-long epistemological thesis regarding the evolutionary trajectory of Species Truth and thinking Maybe theoretically interesting to armchair philosophers, but we are a community of Species Research facilitators. We want to explore and articulate and optimize community values. This phenomenological relativism isn’t helpful. And who the hell cares about what some Massachusetts 19th Century Unitarian homilist thinks about information and doors? Indeed, left off where I left off; not helpful to the NCDD audience. So, what can I learn from this Closed Door response?
First, my implicit cultural expectancy, my hope for “sync” did not accurately predict the NCDD editor’s response. I predicted “yes”; but what I got was not an explicit “no.” Explicated Information bits, or Event-Moments, have been successfully iterated, or revolved, or transposed, or transferred, or “sync”ed.
Sender Me: Hi, Editor, bet you’ll love this one! Please see my brilliance enclosed.
Receiving Editor: {nada}
Implicated Information bits are limited to heuristic status as proposed by Sender Me, to Editor—proposed, but not yet signaled back as “Accepted.” What I got was no response. I am, at this point, free to interpret that any way I want. I can choose to look back at this potentiated communication and hypothesize why my expectation of instant Dialogos Stardom was ego-threateningly disappointed. This option opens the Information opportunity to improve prediction of effective communication, at least within the NCDD community in the future.
Maybe it was an accident. But is there a more plausible explanation that might predict an Open Door effective communication with that Editor? Another way of asking this same question is: Imagine myself at Stage E, looking back at the present Event Stage C, preparing my best enthymematic communication message to “sync” with the Editor at Stage D. In Stage D, my Receiver is responding, at her computer, reading this response to the Stage B Muriel Strand’s Stage C effective communication with that same Editor, now at the analogous Stage D rhetorical moment.
Stage B: Muriel Strand to NCDD Editor: Open Doors are better Information exchange opportunities than Closed Doors.
Stage C: Editor to Strand: Love it! And so will our Group.
NEW EVENT:
Stage C: Me to Editor: Not so fast. Closed Doors present Exformation (e.g. Non-Polynomial Information)
Stage D implicated by Me, but presumably explicated by Editor: Editor: So, Dillenbeck thinks we should all just agree to disagree and move on to greener pastures. Another nut job.
Stage E implicated by Me because I have not actually sent a follow-up: I too love it that Open Doors provide Continuous Value Improvement for social evolution. Isn’t it also interesting that if you imagine Closed Doors from the other side of the Door, before you knock, you can often better find your way through, including the possibility of using another better-designed message at Stage C.
How could I adjust my message so that it would be more likely to get to Stage E with a positive response: the Editor posts my response to Strand for the entire glorious world to see its infinite wisdom?
There are analogies between the failed NCDD and the National Enquirer “Editor” Information exchange attempts:
My Closed Door experience was vulnerable to the risk of confusing prediction with explanation. In hindsight, Stage E, after the fact, looking back on my prediction with the Closed Door Information value of Stage D, I could choose to berate myself with “I should have predicted that.” Or, I could choose to respond with “I might have predicted that if I had thought more about her view of our Rhetorical Event, as well as my own.”
If I were somewhat less secure about my capacity to “sync” effectively with my audience, due to repeated failures to get the response I hoped for, I might suspect a conspiracy on the part of the community to marginalize me into a state of perpetual eisegesis; living in the Lie Group. This communication sequence is characteristic of paranoia, schizophrenia, and other forms of transposed “double-bind” bipolar communication patterns. Damned if I try again, and fail; and damned if I don’t try again, to eisegetical “Truth” confinement.
Moving to the enthymematically implied Stage G level of analysis about my Closed Door experiences, I ask What Information would I need to better sync the NCDD Community’s cultural exegesis with my eisegetical proposal?” Rather than ending on the Closed Door of Incommensurability, why not conclude with faith in the Open Door of “smooth structured” confluence with what had previously met Good-Value standards, an accepted-as-True pattern? I know the Editor told Strand, Yes!. I might have predicted dissonance between the Editor’s cultural expectation and my Stage C communication. I can imagine ways to better sync with the cultural standards of the wider NCDD Community, more likely to result in that great Open Door stamp of “important to consider as a candidate for significant Truth.”
In revolutionary moments of hindsight, when what were Closed Information Doors, inclusive of conspiracy theories, and Lie-risky parables, can now be seen as Open Information Doors. Hypothesizing why my communication did not meet “enthymematic” quality-control standards becomes potentiated Information (Exformation) , heuristically available for a renewed Stage C Rhetorical Event. A new expected Truth hypothesis is born, enthymematically primed for experiential confirmation as “True”, at least for the moment.
Eisegetically offered “humor” syncs to Open Door response of surprise and/or insight.
Eisegetically offered metaphor syncs to Open Door response of fused allegory.
Eisegetically offered prediction syncs to Open Door response of “explanation.”
Eisegetically offered “reverse Information-bit temporal adjustment” syncs to Open Door response of “noticing speciation shift.”
Eisegetically offered “Narrative Structure” syncs to Open Door response of confluent “structure Boundary,” in Mr. Lie’s Group Theory.
Perhaps this sets up a geometric translation capacity in which 1 Information-byte has an interior (implicate) Lie Group structure of a binary fractal octave. A “folded-in-half” octave
As implied within, so explicated without; and
As Truth Stage F explicated without, so implied within.
If this heuristic algorithm stands, it would predict that, in Chemistry’s Table of Elements, Elements 122-127 “exist” in our implicated Universe only, because, if they were True in the without Universe, then Elements 1 through 120 would not be confluent with a Core Vector = (0). But, more about that later. It’s nearly time to retrieve Daquan and wheelchair off the bus.
Day 11
Nearly 24 hours later, instead of reading and writing this morning I attended a very stressful PPT for Ivy, which went on for over 2 hours. I am in a room of educators and therapists trying to work together as a Team, all having Ivy’s long-term sustainable, best interests at heart—I hope, and believe. There is a heated discussion about whether Ivy on psychotropics, any psychotropic cocktail tried to date, has a documented history of improved long-term trajectory outcomes over not medicated. Or vice versa.
We are all looking at a small graph covering last school year’s “Aggressive Behavior” code-trend. The school administrators look at the data and conclude a reverse correlation is the only possible rational interpretation of the data; as dosages decreased, aggression increased. I look at the same data, and accepting the same information as accurately coded I conclude it indicates no correlation (Not a POSITIVE Correlation and Not a NEGATIVE Correlation) between Ivy’s aggressive tendencies under the influence of any level or type of psychotropic medication. How can this be? Under the assumption that we are speaking rationally, that is.
In hindsight (an attempt at Stage F as (0) Prime Relationship Rhetorical Boson +/- center-line), the data set itself is not adequate to choose whether the School’s explanatory hypothesis is stronger, or if mine is, or if they are both cast into the shadow by a stronger, more encompassing , theory. We are having a moment of dwindling hope of closure with consensus.
The data set does not include how much of which meds she was actually consuming each day. The School based their dosage trend analysis (uncharted, not quantified) on what Ivy was getting at School, assuming that the home dosage pattern was proportionally correlated. This, despite my having told them, repeatedly, that this is an inaccurate recounting of actual historical events. Yet, when I tell them the dosage trend, home+school, over the same months, they still insist there is a negative correlation, so why don’t I go back to the meds? Hmmm. What to do….
Certainly this is a case where information is being interpreted to fit two different sets of what is expected. And what is expected is what is hoped for is to synergetically continue to see our environment the way we see it most articulately right now. Don’t you dare even think of challenging my tightly-held “sync” gestalt, or True+Real Paradigm Fractal = BOSON. School administrators, faced with a kid who is a behavioral risk, need to be able to tell their staff and parents that they are doing everything possible to minimize that risk. Generally, in our schooling and health cultures, this has included the use of psychotropics. So it is not at all surprising to me that, when they look at a data set showing a clear aggression escalation during the second semester after a stable low-frequency first semester, the first thing they are going to notice, in their C-F Fractal gestalt, is the end of School-administered stimulants in December, and an increase in aggression frequency starting in January. Further, I do not dispute those two things as being historically accurate. But, that’s all they have. All the other evidence surrounding that is inconclusive of any correlation.
Yet I do not suspect any conspiracy on their part, just as I don’t see myself as a Conspiracy Theorist about why Pope Benedict 16 without cultural precedent, precipitously retired from being God’s TruthTeller on Earth. Rather, I think we have confused prediction with expectation. If we had not expected to see a negative correlation between the reduction in power frequencies and an increase in resistant energy, we would not so precipitously conclude that the one (reduction in meds, and reduction in social status for Cardinal Ratzinger) is causally related to the other (increase in Ivy as predator, and a “fired” former Pope). Cultural expectation influences the range of information we select as being historically germane. Recognizing the truth of that in any one Boson, in hindsight, is rather like speciation is only visible after the fact. But, are we behaving in a way that is consonant with paranoia? Are we seeing conspiracies and correlations that are not there; things that, if seen differently, could present a threat, a risk to our tightly-held Information v. Exformation Storage System? Is our confusion about cause and effect creative chaos where an implicate order may indeed present a “smooth structure”, a confluently predicted pattern between the community’s exegetically accepted Truth and our tortured efforts to learn from this Event, and behave civilly? How do we know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis in this particular moment of apparent Incommensurability?
Day 12
The way we have traditionally discerned between Not-Orthodox eisegetical Truth and Orthodox exegetically-held Truth, when they appear to be in conflict, may still be more or less in place, even in our Science, Research, Learning, and Math paradigms. Traditionally, we ask ourselves, “What messages am I receiving from my Community?” In Theology, “What is the Orthodox range of acceptance as “True” within the Community of Orthodox Theologians?” I can see some gray area in there; informed and reasonable individuals will diversely prioritize who are the most Orthodox of all Theologians.
In Health and Education Research, “What is the range of optimal performance to achieve a “Goodness” Value within my ExpertCommunity? [in the CVI Paradigm, a Continuous Value Improvement approaches sustainable optimization with the balance of Good Quality and Low-to-No Power Resistance]?” In Economics, “What is the sustainable optimal Value performance for the Planet, inclusive of inhabitants.” In Information-based Systems Theory, “What is the optimal Group Theory “True” code for Lie Group “Real Information Pattern.”
I believe the evidence so far suggests that the Real Information (as opposed to Real Exformation) Code is “UUU” in Chemistry and Biology, and “0,(),1” in Theology and Information Theory. The Exegetical Truth root is not-1, not-I, so it is (0) Core Vectored. The eisegetical Truth in any one Information Storage organism is also (0) Coded, unless it is anomalously noticed as Not-0, and therefore (1) Sub-Prime Stage Core Vectored.
Essentially, UUU, and –U/+U work as allegorical symbols for remembering the “Golden Rule.” Do not treat others in opposition to the Way we optimally value being treated. In any research paradigm, we are asking our “Boson” [defined broadly as a community, group, set, atom, molecule, cell, organism, Self-awareness, family, tribe, town, city, region, nation, United Nations, planet, environment, universe, God], “What would you do if you were me, trying to understand what I have noticed?” When we forget to ask that question, as the opportunities arise, from moment to moment, then we act a bit nuts, maybe even rabid, quite frankly.
Not to be judgmental. I consider myself a good listener, but occasionally I get into my gumption-traps, because I keep forgetting to ask that question. So, if I don’t even ask what I most need to know to respond wisely, then what is the point of being a good listener? On the other hand, is it even possible to be an enthymematic listener when I am in the midst of what feels like a not-free-to-learn trap.
For example, getting back to yesterday. It took me 12 hours to figure out that all I needed to know to begin deciding the best thing to do for Ivy’s school situation would be to ask her current school and two or three alternative schools the same question:
Dear School Administrator:
I am having a hard time figuring out what I should decide about my child’s best shot at being a successful learner, with sustainable low-risk behavior trends. So I wrote up the following Case Study to reflect Ivy’s situation as I understand it. My only question for you, which I would prefer by email response, if possible, is: What would you recommend I do? I am somewhat less interested in what you think your School could do. We may get to that.
- 11-year old girl, Fetal Alcohol, Cerebral Palsy, functioning academically in range of K-2. Social development can be age-appropriate through high anxiety/low confluence synaptic and bipolar. Overall academic performance trend has been flat-line for three to four years. Physical development has been age-appropriate, compensating for underlying Cerebral Palsy and impaired vision. Socio-emotional development has been trending increasingly erratic with the onslaught of puberty. Home v. School anxiety-level trends began deviating during Ivy’s transition to current school, less than 1.5 years prior to following events.
- Ivy began at her current school with unprecedentedly high “aggressive episodes.” This was anticipated as a strong possibility in response to new environmental stressors.
- During August, when Ivy was not in school, I reduced her medication levels for the first 2 weeks, and then brought them back up to full strength in time for the first day of school. She seemed to sleep better, be less constipated, happier, less fatigued, less incessantly hungry, more secure on her compromised legs, and have improved speech articulation—it was easier for her to be understood, during the second and third week than was the case during the first and fourth weeks.
- Because I had good results for several years with my oldest son using stimulants to treat ADD only on school days, I decided to skip the stims on non-school days for Ivy as well. By the end of September, the first month of school, Ivy complained that the stimulants made her head fuzzy. It was hard to think.
I had read that this was a fairly common complaint and there was some research suggesting that kids who do better with social behavior on stimulants were perhaps simultaneously adversely affected in terms of their ability to attain and retain information. Medicated learning systems are complicated. Stimulants were perhaps aggravating ADD as a learning disability despite making it easier for kids to have the first clue what is going on in the classroom—reading social cues and executive functioning.
So, I gradually reduced Ivy’s stims during the first half of October. Her behavior improved mildly at home, and remained good at school. This may have been when I first noticed that Ivy’s at-home behavior trend is no longer in sync with her behavior trend at school.
- I noticed that Ivy’s aggressive behavior accounts, number of restraints, was slightly higher in December than had been the case since September. I also noticed that Ivy was blooming into hormone-engorged puberty, including the start of menstruation. I failed to notice that Ivy’s home-aide had transitioned from 12 hours/week to 40 hours/week, and it may be the case (again, in hindsight) that I over-valued that transition on the plus side, from Ivy’s perspective. Her at-home anxiety level began to range between moderate-to-low.
- However, Ivy’s aggressive behavior trend at school continued at the December rate, and continued to trend higher, moving from moderate- to high-risk frequencies, into March. During that time, after consulting with Ivy’s Psychiatrist, we proceeded with a med-wash trial of one of Ivy’s two psychotropic prescriptions at that time. Ivy’s behavior trended back toward moderate during the med-wash, ending with her no longer receiving her afternoon dose at school. Throughout, Ivy’s behavior trend at home remained moderate-to-low, usually low on weekends.
- I assisted Ivy in her classroom for about 20 minutes in April. Her anxiety level was very high. My surprise, despite having seen her high aggression incident numbers, was because I had not seen Ivy like that since before our most recent transition in home aide support, and because she returned to a level of emotional rigidity (rather than plasticity) with me that I had not experienced in over a year, nor have I since. We decided to try a med wash for her last remaining psychotropic. Her aggression/restraint reports went back down to moderate in late April. Ivy lost her excess fat, she slept reliably, she seemed significantly happier at home. She gradually became significantly less constipated. Anxiety levels at home were reliably low, more easily predicted, with increased plasticity in emotional recovery.
- During the summer Ivy returned to a moderate dosage of Abilify. Her behavior remained flat at moderate-risk. After summer school we again med-washed Ivy of Abilify and Ivy showed a clear correlation trend only with regard to hunger level and constipation (lower without medication), as expected. I recall thinking on the first day of school, in September, that this was the best I had seen her in at least 2 years. She started the year with low aggression risk, trending gradually up to moderate by the middle of October. Her anxiety level at home continues to remain low-trended on non-school days and low-to-moderate on school days.
- Recent Triennial indicates flat-lined academic learning, perhaps with some recidivism, as compared to 3 years ago. Intelligence scores remain stable, no significant indicators of recidivism; but Ivy is very difficult to test reliably without using a large number of testing events. Ivy has been noted at school and at home as having developed Imaginary Friend vocalized relationships, including visualization, and perhaps audio, imagery of undetermined specificity. Everyone, including Ivy’s Psychiatrist, seems to agree that at this point, and for as long as the voices continue to be confluent for her (not dissonant/disturbing), then we should leave her and her voices alone. She is most likely to access this support, although not exclusively so, as a resource for socio-emotional isolation. There are indicators that this behavior may be socio-emotional appropriate, perhaps even constructive, given her neural-cognitive history.
- Now what?
I figure if they are wise enough to recommend I do with Ivy what we agree, inclusive of Ivy, and her voices, is her best shot at sustainable well-being , then that is the school I will go with. Wish us all luck.
I woke up this morning thinking about Atomic Elements 116, 117, 118, 119, and Hydrogen. I don’t know much about any of them. But here are some things I do notice:
116: Livermorium Lv, probably homologous to polonium, Po, Atomic #84. First discovered by Pierre and Marie Curie. It is radioactive, occurs in uranium, is probably in the set of metals, but appears ambiguously so. Used for anti static devices. I notice ambiguous anomaly potential.
117: Produced synthetically only and not yet named as of the June 2013 edition of Scientific American. This excellent article, by Eric Scerri, Ph.D, also notes, “…as the atomic numbers…reached higher, some of the added elements no longer behaved the way the periodic law requires… The reason is that some of the electrons orbiting the heaviest nuclei reach speeds that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light…. Thus, even as Mendeleev’s creation has filled up and scored its successes, it may have begun to lose its explanatory and predictive power.” Oh my god, the Laws of Chemistry are going ultra-irrational (“quantum”) and this isn’t headline news? Really?! I notice surprising confusion.
118: Ununoctium Uuo, the highest atomic mass of all identified elements. The only synthetic member of Group 18 and the only one to only ambiguously behave as a noble gas should behave. Under normal conditions, Uuo is predicted to be a solid, according to Wikipedia.org. Well, that’s a relief. It looks like there is at least hope that things may get back to normal again. I notice the possibility of hope fulfilled.
119: The trail ends here. No assignation with “119” in the Chemistry Community. But, following our Fractal Hypothesis, what if we consider the possibility, “Well, maybe this is the end of a Fractally-Structured Information Systems Loop.” Wouldn’t we expect that it might act like a “static” device reaching the speed of darkness, of Exformation? Like a Core Vertex for a “Black Hole” maybe. Why don’t we go crazy and heuristically stick the “meme” Implicated-Only Boson here at 119: “Examples of bosons include fundamental particles (i.e., Higgs boson, the four force-carrying gauge bosons of the Standard Model, and the still-theoretical graviton of quantum gravity).” (Wikipedia.com, “Boson”) In fact, let’s try defining 119 as the Graviton Boson Uu(-o), and see where that takes us toward 120. I notice the implied potential for convergence between Chemistry and Physics.
120: If all the above Group Theory allegories lined up, then I would expect that 116-119, held together, might act as an excellent candidate for the implicate order of Hydrogen—thus traversing the 4-fold boundary between the Lie Group function of Livermorium as a confluent “smooth structure” explanation for the Periodic Table, beginning with Atomic Number 1, over a Higgs Boson Core-Vector (0) implicated structure. Prime 4-Based Prime Relationship =
Stage A: Tao
Notice new Truth faith that we have real potential (empowering threshold frequencies) to understand this Moment as explained/predicted in exegetical Memory Storage
Stage G-119: -Tao
Notice that Faith Boson Moment (P) is reverse (NP) positioned re-telling of hoped, predicted, Information (it used to be Exformed until a moment ago)
Stage F-118: Yang=Yin, Ununoctium, Uuo, mutually-defining perpetuated relationship, P=NP
Experience Boundary balance + = (-) temporal direction equipoise: Hope is fulfilled as a transposed and balanced “sync” Faith Boson is magnetically and synergetically glimpsed.
Stage E-117: explicate function-(+)=(-) {Yang}
Notice new hope, new frequency trend possibly emerging out of transitional chaos.
Stage D-116: +implicated, unitive/radiant synapse, {Yin-Livermorium}
Loss of Stage C’s replication-valued Information detail to form a new heuristic Boson, emergent
Thomas Acquinas took a tediously long and loving look at proximate first act and other such cognitive stages. I doubt that I have anything to add of significance to anyone, including myself.
Day 13
Elemental
Is the word the work
Of someone who tills the blue field,
Unearths its dark plenitude
For the tight seed to release its thought
Into the ferment of clay,
Searching to earth the light
And come to voice in a word of grain
That can sing free in the breeze,
Bathe in the yellow well of the sun,
Avoid the attack of the bird,
And endure the red cell of the oven
Until memory leavens in the gift of bread?
John O’Donohue, Conamara Blues, 2001, p. 17
If we consider each day of this project as equivalent to one Ripley Gate Stage, then yesterday was Transmutation and this glorious full-octaved Autumn morning, looking across and up at the rusty and golden and amber, and orange and red-dressed trees in my West Hartford backyard, is perhaps a new beginning of hope. Starting a new phase on an enthymematic trail of optimized communication patterns.
Gregory Bateson argued, in Mind and Nature, and undoubtedly elsewhere—he was ubiquitously published during the 60s—that we have the capacity to learn to learn. Further, as self-aware mental systems, we have the capacity to intentionally, or explicitly, focally, set out to see if what we have learned can teach us anything about learning itself. When we do this, we tend to get better at it; more efficient, more optimized—good for CVI.
Let’s agree to label any form of set, group, gestalt, community, universe as a temporal gestalt function Boson. A contextual memory code-pattern. It’s not the game of chess, it is the chess board and rules of Orthodox order.
Now let’s imagine our Boson as an energy sequence, spinning around a Core Vector (0) OVER a 4-Based synergetic Prime Relationship where P=NP.
Let’s also define 1 Information-bit as a Core Vector(0)/4-R Lie Group. Where “R” is 1 Binary Relationship and/or 1 +/- Revolution around a Boson.
Our learning hypothesis, based on Days 1-12 above, is:
Yang: “As within, so it is without; and
As without, so it is within” is functionally equivalent to
Yin: Polynomial Core Vector (0) = Non-Polynomial e, and
E = implicated Tao Fractal Frequency, with optimized resonance = Infinity
Where e is any Eulerian function and E = 1 electron = 1 exegetical “meme” Information-bit within any metaphysical universe. We’re talking math theory here.
Corollaries: For Permacultured Values Improvement (qualitative structure function-P=1 + (-1) Binary OVER quantitative frequency–NPolynomial default = 0) using QBit 4-Base Binary default Assumption
e is to E as Yin is to Yang, and E is to e as Yang is to Yin.
For me, it’s easier to see the relationship between Oxygen and Hydrogen as an icon of the positional Information Structure Information (what the chess board looks like and the instructions for the most efficient way to tell the Creation Story for your Origami PermaCulture Game Creation Project. Like your life, for example, or a gardening project, or how to build a more holistic economy in a way that optimizes diversity and inclusion, by eliminating Exegetical Bullying on the playing board and expecting all players to consistently follow the One Golden Value Prime Relationship Rule:
Attract Not-U (-1) by imagining Not-U (-1) as U (+1) Or, you know, just the opposite:
Do Not Attract 1 by remembering 1 as a (0) [=(-1), NonPolynomial Exformed, Binary-Expressed. most anything else you might want to create with sustainable and optimized QBit Information Transaction Value, 3-D Binary Universe (000) Core Vectored.
Water = H²O = [+H(-H)]² = [Yang/Yin+/Yin (-)] = E/e+/e(-) = 1/+0/-0 = P/NP = 1/0 OVER ()
Where E is Energy is a QBit Boson System, and e is Eulerian Temporal Function. Compatible with Fuller’s (0) Core Vector and Prime Root as oppositionally synergetic Relationship temporal function, and Perelman’s soul conjecture proof that, if there is Energy (Information, within), then the Lie Group must always be smooth-structured reverse-explicated Not-(). As within, so without.
Individual conscience is to Community consciousness (using Jayne’s explication), as
Individual Consciousness of Community Consciousness is to Individual conscience.
The Theory of Relativity explains why, as individuals, we logically retain relatively-bound, but not mechanistically-bound, freedom. Just as each individual has a unique finger print, each individual has a uniquely proportioned Exformation receptor system.
The Theory of Synergetic Exformation explains why, as individuals, we analogically retain comparatively unbounded freedom. Just as each individual has an Information/Exformation Bicameral receptor system, we can enthymematically communicate Metaphysically to learn Exegetical Reality collectively through Narrative Re-Membering, Re-Telling, Re-Calculating from the Metaphysical “gap” proportion back to the Prime Relationship u/v.
Pi = 1 Binary Prime Relationship QBit (0). It is also 1% of Polynomial function = 1e.
The following analogies all follow the algorithm:
As within, so without,
As without, so within
Individual eisegesis is to Community Exegesis as
Individual Exegesis is to Individual eisegesis.
In the unfolding of any one individual organism’s development:
1. Community Exegesis is RNA Coded = U
2. Individual Exegesis is DNA Coded = A
3. Individual Eisegesis is anomaly noticed =G-Coded = Not-A
4. Community Exegesis is Right-hemisphere explicated (rejected) if Not-A is not dissonant with C (= Not-U).
-4. Community Exegesis is Right-hemisphere implicated-only (heuristically Coded as a (0) C Boson if G is confluent with C
Learning is to Exegetical Analogy Resonance (Permacultured Narrative) as
Individual Analogy Communication is to Creating.
Logic is to Rational Holonic Pattern Resonance as
Analogy is to Logic.
From individuated event to generalized Boson Set is informed by confluent harmony, as
Functional Inter-Relationship Patterns define “individual”
Left hemisphere awareness is to Right hemisphere neural structure, as
RNA is to DNA, maybe.
But, first let’s travel back in time to Russia, to the general area where we would have found Leonhard Euler and Grigori Perelman, in the 1700s, and in the 1900-early 2000s respectively.
Back even further in time, according to the Kurgan hypothesis PIE linguistic roots go back to ca 3700 BC, we would cross over the Black Sea, Pontus Euxinus, searching for the headwaters of the Dnieper River, formerly the “Amber Road”. In so doing, we are ass under the Equinox night sky of Uranus, who joined Varuna’s Milky Way celestial “river,” resulting in Aphrodite—and we are all well aware of where that tributary leads. But, linguistically, “Ouranos” may be rooted in the Hindu “Varuna”, binding. Traveling up the Varuna river, seeking dark union with Uranus, we arrive in the general vicinity of “pi” as a bound circle, accomplished through discretely implied closure of a liquid/plasma marriage, reflected in the Milky Way. This pi-root, moistening through a saturating united fruition, seasonally, episodically, creating one moment’s newly discovered Hydrogen “electron.” A Universe created as a 3-dimensional moment of bound relationship. Pi seems linguistically born in the Russian headlands of the Amber Road.
In the 1700s, somewhere around St. Petersburg perhaps, Euler struggles mightily to insert the function as the prime root of the Mathematics exegetical paradigm. Math is core vectored in a relationship; not a noun, not a variable, not a numeric, not an integer, not a “thing”. Interestingly, Euler was something of a left-eyed Cyclops, in a right-eyed strabismus sort of way, during the time his unusually perceptive Right hemisphere was thinking about the meaning of pi as a ratio, and calmly stating “e” as the base “Number” or “natural logarithm”. Later, Buckminster Fuller would reiterate that any natural logarithm is geometrically rooted, or vectored, to be more precise, and is rationally confluent with trigonometric functions, as originally symbolized by none other than Master Euler.
Like Buckminster Fuller, Grigori Perelman was thinking about geometrics and Euler and the “soul conjecture” in the latter half of the 1900s. Unlike Fuller, but like Euler, Perelman was pondering away in the St. Petersburg area, the headlands of Aphrodite’s soul. Perelman wrote exegetically accepted proofs of important geometric conjectures, using mathematicians’ accepted symbols. He elegantly proved the soul conjecture, Thurston’s geometrization conjecture, and won many math awards. There are a number of ways we could look at Perelman’s work, and we may get to others, but what seems most germane right here in our Core Vector (0) isomorphic holonic moment, are some examples I found in Wikipedia.org, “soul conjecture.”
Every compact manifold is its own soul. Indeed, the theorem is often stated only for non-compact manifolds.
As a very simple example, take M to be Euclidean space Rn. The sectional curvature is 0, and any point of M can serve as a soul of M.
Now take the paraboloid M = {(x,y,z) : z = x2 + y2}, with the metric g being the ordinary Euclidean distance coming from the embedding of the paraboloid in Euclidean space R3. Here the sectional curvature is positive everywhere. The origin (0,0,0) is a soul of M. Not every point x of M is a soul of M, since there may be geodesic loops based at x.
One can also consider an infinite cylinder M = {(x,y,z) : x2 + y2 = 1}, again with the induced Euclidean metric. The sectional curvature is 0 everywhere. Any “horizontal” circle {(x,y,z) : x2 + y2 = 1} with fixed z is a soul of M.
It seems to me that our Boson is M and our Core Vector (0) is its soul. Further, our Boson may be envisioned as spherical and as a cylinder, or column, or, perhaps, a string. Our view of the exegetical Community M may be a roundish perma-moment, or the evolution of a Golden River s, traveling through the centuries, or both. Regardless, any point-perspective we might choose on the defining boundary of the Boson will be isomorphic of all other points; they will be mutually self-defining, refractive. And, our Core Vector soul will always include a holon of our Boson. In fact, if I have it right, our Boson is the explicated structure of our (0) Root. Every compact manifold is its own soul, just as every confluent Boson eisegetical moment is a “sync” with our Right hemisphere’s proportional-awareness Memory structure. At least for the moment.
Also, I’m playing with the oxymoron: calculating creativity.
Could it be that calculating is to learning, as
Creating is to loving?
And might it be that loving is to learning, as
Creating is to calculating? And vice versa?
Could it be that learning is to creating, as
Calculating is to loving?
Could it be, then, that loving to calculate
Might be an Open Door
To designing to learn, to learn, to learn?
I hope so.
Day 14
I woke up at 5. It’s still dark this Saturday morning. Daquan woke up when I changed his diaper, crowed like a rooster for a bit, then, when he saw that I was going to sit bedside in his rocker while writing, endlessly, decided to curl up and enjoy a lovingly-monitored nap. He has a dimple on the right side of his mouth when he smiles. It defines his emotional boundary between a smile and a smirk, to my way of seeing his world. I can see his dimple.
Yesterday I was thinking back about Uranus, diversely spelled over the centuries, but apparently with a cultural history as “Anu,” going back to Sumerian mythology, then emerging into Assyrian/Babylonion culture, eventually to be translated as “Sky God”. There is a Trinitarian confusion in the cultural history that has come down the pike over the centuries, to land on the internet in “Wikipedia.” Ouranus, was the Prime Greek God. Ather Sky God was married to Gaia, Mother Earth, giving birth to the River Styx, perhaps linguistically associated with the Blood River of Gaia. I can see here the roots of Franciscan spirituality. But, long before St. Francis brought the Yang/Yin tradition and embedded it within the Code of the Christianity Tradition, a guy in our Value Metrics Department, Hesiod Theogony, has Ouranos conceived by Gaia as a Virgin birth. So, here we see early roots of Trinitarianism, prior to Christianity, when you combine cultural paradigms that may have been side-by-side at the time, as P.I.E. is emerging across Europe and into Latin and Greek.
Note the letter “u” associated with Prime, consorting with the letter “v”. These two letters show up in before-after-before iterative relationship in Math and in Physics ( e.g. ultra, for sustained, permanent, high frequencies beyond human capacity to hear or see; and violet, volt, void-threshold, Virgin,Varuna, vagina, associated with the highest noticeable threshold for synaptic reception within our Species’ Calculating Code. Optimized cultural value frequencies OVER permanently NP Exformation Values. What a fine permacultural, yeasty, earthy, yet Binary web we weave.
Other early traditions, perhaps more tribally based, more traditional, more nature-conversant, more rural, site Aether as the father of Ouranos, having conceived his virgin daughter Gaia with Gaia’s Mom, Varuna, the god of falling rain—without gender. I AM’s Water fell, basically. Aether was the stars and planets and what was much more visibly apparent to them, much more dominant of their night sky than of our urban-lit imagination, the plasmatic Milky Way. Progenitive Aether radiated high-frequency plasma.
The young Virgin Gaia, made of plasma and rain, may have evolved from our earliest cultural concept of “blood” to symbolize water and liquids of all kinds, as the life-force of organisms on Planet Earth. “Sap”, the liquid visible in plants, it would follow, may have been thought of as a progenitor or relative of “blood.” The two symbols, I would think, might have been associated, perhaps even in a Yang/Yin-ish sort of mutually balancing and defining kind of way. The shared home of what became known as “protein culture.” Now we’re getting to the healthy permaculture nutrient part of our Creation Story.
Leaving Hesiod and Homer back in the land of early urban-history, and coming back in our direction a bit, to Ptolemy, we find a guy who was nothing if not prolific. Even today, who on earth has time to plow through all that remains? However, his culminating work, the Tetrabiblos, he begins with something of a build-up: “Since the topic of nativities has been summarily reviewed, it would be well to bring this procedure also to a fitting close.” So, basically, I’m guessing he has been summarizing the early cultural narratives, which would primarily be about important births and deaths, and major rumblings in between; but, apparently, with emphasis on the birth stories.
He begins his promised summative statement, Tetrabiblos 1:1, “Most events of a general nature draw their causes from the enveloping heavens.” Not such a stretch, really, from the opening of “Genesis,” “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” (Revised Standard) So basically we could agree here that Aether created depth, maybe 3-dimensionality, by sweeping across dark liquid. And Aether may have something to do with the stars and plasma, as Ptolemy calls the “enveloping heavens.” So, I come back to dark liquid and plasma, again, as causally related to most within events. It still sounds like implicated RNA to me, especially if you notice an interesting variation of the Golden Ratio that may have been alive in Ptolemy’s day. Early Latin mathematician/theologians may have been as familiar, or even more familiar, with the Golden Ratio as “As below, so above, as above, so below.” So, the Milky Way is symbolic of plasma, delivered to the blood/sap Life Force by Varuna, the God/dess of Falling Rain. The function of birth is fertile plasmation, implanting Life Force, symbolized by streams and drops of rain.
My Right hemisphere seems in control in this historical time traveling, searching for connections, with faith in our underlying unity. Meanwhile, my Left hemisphere continues exploring, heuristically.
If we zoom in on early symbols that look like strings, lines, and drops of rain, dots, vectors, we may also be looking at our proto-historical view of what becomes one-dimensional and two-dimensional abstractions (the linguistic source-root of our Metaphysical Narrative), but more primitively, symbols for streams as “1”, originally a line, and “0” as a circle, or drop. 1-line-flowing stream would be explicated-Yang. 0-drop-falling rain would be implicated-Yin, the plasma within the flowing stream.
Looked at in that way, there may be a linguistic connection between the later Wisdom version of the original Birth, somewhat longer-winded than Ptolemy, but probably of kindred spirit, so to speak. WithIn, the beginning [Prime Boson] was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. WordGod was in the Prime Temporal Boson as God; all things were made through WordGod and without WordGod was not anything made that was made. In WordGod was life, and the life was the light of our Community. The light shines in the darkness [Metaphysically, implicated light is darkness], and the darkness has not overcome it. Yet.
Essentially, “Word” is Yang Life Force, and “God” is Yin Life Force. This Life Force is explicately radiant energy, and implicately unitive Prime Function-Relationship (to borrow from Euler). Function begets Form, structure, and, eventually, Group Theory; traveling forward to Mr. Lie and the “wallpaper Manifold” paradigm.
Wisdom literature may be more influenced by the older “As within, so without” version of the Golden Ratio. Rather than the birth action emerging from above downward, emergence and speciation begin internally, implicately, and emerge toward the outside surface, like a pyramid-shaped water-fountain, spewing Information 360 degrees, 7 days/week, especially from its edges and Prime Vectors . The Prime Core “Word” is the history of symbols necessary to have a Species capable of recognizing its own shared Birth Story and Narrative Culture. Without the “Word” there is no “Species”, no culture, no history. The Wisdom literature looks toward the birth of our Left hemisphere, to explain the universe as perceived by our Right hemisphere.
I see a similar Right-Left hemisphere dynamic when I am with Daquan, my non-linguistic son. His “default” emotional setting is confluent. He seems to see his home and family as our “power from within.” When he doesn’t feel so great, he wants to be held. He feels better. His medicine and power and health values are all undifferentiated. On the other hand, he has his Yang moments. The crowing in the morning when he wakes up and wants his diaper changed, and when he is constipated and he is loud and manic trying to potentiate an event that he knows from experience will make him feel more confluent, relaxed, returning to his Right-hemisphere dominant Yin default “peace.”
Indicators of his sense of humor areYang-expressed, with belly laughs, but Yin-rooted, when I see the dimple, but don’t hear the roar of his contagious laughter. Daquan finds “power with” and “power over” equally hilarious, and does not seem able to distinguish between the two. They are both wider-ranging wavelengths than his Right-normative receptor codes as not anomalous. In his Right-dominant mental space, he seems to have the wisdom to recognize that my “power over” heated exchanges are simply transposed, maybe “constipated,” power-with substitutes, mistakes, errors, or realistic acquiescence to my embodied Self-awareness as merely mortal—and not infinitely accessible to all comers at all times. Daquan’s laughter in the face of my anger reminds me that he is the Wiser. It’s just my constipated way of letting him know that I still care about him, or whoever has me vexed at the moment; usually Ivy.
Ivy is my Yang icon. She is all about “I AM,” while her Right hemisphere remains confused about the “That I AM” response frequencies. She is lonely, isolated, afraid, defensive, and megalomaniac a good share of the time. When she is not, when she manages to connect with her environment, then she radiates energy. She finds her “power from within” center and playfully luxuriates in it. She can’t sit still. She jumps, rhythmically, repeatedly, episodically, with a big smile spread across her face, her head tilted back, apparently in some dervish trance of ecstasy.
Together, throughout my days, Daquan and Ivy are my Yin and Yang iconic reminders of where we have been as a species, as we do our best to sync our Left with our Right hemispheres; our DNA expression with our RNA Code.
Imagine that your RNA is named “Daquan” and your DNA is named “Ivy.” Daquan has amnesia. Ivy discovers this when she is trying to share a memory that she knows for a fact is historically accurate (real) and one that Daquan and she used to laugh about together, but now Daquan, to be honest, reluctantly lets Ivy know that he no longer has that memory. The structure of the narrative makes sense to him, but it doesn’t fit with any event that he can truthfully code as having been part of his own narrative. Ivy feels a keen sense of loss because not only was the original event cherished, but also their subsequent revisiting of the event, enjoying it all over again together. Daquan also has a sense of emptiness, not really loss, but the absence of a value that he believes he once had. Not really the presence of a disvalue, or loss of value, but the absence of a value he wishes he could have expected, as did Ivy. He suspects what was Information has revolved backward into Exformation.
I wonder if the eisegetical-DNA/exegetical-RNA coding economy develops analogously, with U-G requiring mutual structural resonance and A-C requiring compatible spin resonance. In our Fractal Value Game Theory, the Prime Base for the Genetic Code would begin with “UUU” valued at 000 as the “soul” value for our RNA Game Board.
Not True-Not Real (implicate powered only) Not True- Real
#116 Livermorium Base function #118 Ununoctium torq R frequency
Info Function Value: -0 Info Fermion Value: +.5
Implicate-Yin Structure Quark
UUU-regenerative plasma “God-soul” AAA-“Word” Aether God
True-Not Real True- Real
#117 Not-Ununoctium torq -R frequency # 119 Boson form
Info Fermion Value: -.5 Info Function Value: +1
Lepton Explicate-Yang Structure
CCC-regenerative code frequency (P) GGG-regenerative plasma code structure (NP)
Where “True” is Explicated Value, and “Real” is Explicated Power
In this hypothesis, the Group Theory “soul” function (UUU) is to the God-implicator (AAA) as the implicated Code (“Word”) CCC is to the explicated Code structure, GGG.
And, the predicted soul memory (UUU) is to the “Code” of history (CCC) as the implicated Progenitor (AAA) is to the Boson of Species code structure (GGG). If so, then we should be able to “explain” the frequency pattern of the genetic code. Our developing narrative is retold in our Code structure.
Day 15
Daquan, my rooster, let me know it was time to awaken, despite the darkness. The darkness was internal as well, iconic. But, not just iconic, I begin to suspect; perhaps holonic as well; 2 Binary QBits Information equals 1 QBit Exformation within our Physical Narrative; but 1 QBit Information equals 1 QBit Exformation when telling our Metaphysical Story.
In my Atripla-induced state, as is the case every night at bedtime, thanks to my too-intimate familiarity with AIDS, I woke up this Sunday morning thinking dark and foreboding thoughts about Robert Pirsig and schizophrenia, about our value-systems gumption trap as a Species, initiated by the Industrial Revolution, when “industry” became divorced from the value of “vocation.”
I want to follow the strong advice of Buckminster Fuller, echoed by Albert Einstein, to avoid getting bogged down in whining about all the problems with the current sucky political and economic and educational and health and environmental protection and justice and human welfare systems, to name too many, rather than accepting life’s invitation to design a system using Continuous Value Improvement (CVI) standards. And, I trust this detour into the grayness of cultural review will lead us into more vibrant sunlight today. First, however, I feel compelled to “shout out” a brief tribute to two of my mentors who have paid a heavy price for immersing themselves in our shared vocation.
Robert Pirsig paid a terribly personal cost for his internal-external conversation about Quality and Value and reality. If he hadn’t the intellectual strength of a horse and the moral integrity of a saint, it would have killed him before he wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The part of his story that I don’t understand was, given all the feedback his environment had given him over his lifetime, how did it happen that Zen was ever published, by William Morrow Publishers, after his 122nd submission attempt! Where did he find the strength and integrity to hang onto his hope for the rest of us? Because he obviously didn’t do it for himself. He did not want the notoriety, nor did he value any more income than needed to live a fairly independent, reclusive, modest lifestyle of quiet dignity and reflection. It takes a lot less resources to have enough to be free to share with others than it takes to have enough to be free from each other.
My other autonomous mentor is another Robert, Robert Norton, also concerned with human values, but more specifically about communication values and transactions; the structure of Information transactions, perhaps. This Robert was my communications theory professor at the University of Michigan about the time Pirsig’s Zen was selling like McDonald’s french fries. Here we have another genius, struggling to maintain coherence through a rocky, and most certainly not famously successful, academic career path. Norton is brilliant. Sitting in the same room with him, I could feel it, hear it, see it. Admittedly most of my peers found him on a spectrum between awesome and insane, with the majority clustering around “terrifying.” This does not lead to the kind of end-of-year consumer reviews that Open Doors to the green pastures of a tenure track, nor do I believe that Norton was ever entirely comfortable with that pasture as promising sufficient nutrients for his overly-heated mind.
Parallel to Pirsig, this other Norton is reclusive, more or less at peace with his lot in life, I suspect, enjoys what he does, but essentially refuses to communicate with me or anyone else except in person, in the same room, or possibly by Skype. Written language is a poor cousin to engaging in conversation. This is an interesting position to take for a communications theorist. If you read his book, written with David Brenders, published in the late 90s, rarely cited even by his professional colleagues in communications theory, you begin to understand why Bob values his decade, plus, counseling early victims of AIDS far more than any other of his several rhetorical events.
Communication loses most of its power potential when reduced to symbols on a page. It is bleached of its rich nutritional potential for building a value-optimized Boson. The highest enthymematic values accessible to written communication emerge as the written word is embedded in story, narrative, and is explicitly told as a self-referencing rhetorical event. That’s why so many in the Norton-through-Dillenbeck generation were fascinated with Pirsig’s tragic story of value conflicts. I suspect this is the rhetorical power value that defines when we use the word “literature” rather than it’s more plebian synonyms. The best literature newly reveals something about its author and about its readers to all of the above that we all agree we almost knew to be true, and/or false, all along.
Daquan is sitting up again, golden light reflecting off the neighbor’s house into the window, radiating into his bicameral cortex.
Here is where I suspect this journey is taking us, or at least me. We live in a fractally-structured Information-based evolving universe of self-perpetuated mutual definition. Our bicameral brains experience this information in double-binary (duodecimal) fractals called “octaves.” This is probably why we perceive color, while most species with optical sensors do not. And if they do, “red” is the first anomalous “color” frequency to emerge from its grayscaled background.
When our hemispheres process information with optimal effectiveness, we can see that Bosons are Information trajectories through time, conserving space-continuity. Symbol communication is our Species’ enthymematic (to heuristically describe Exformation based solely on the placement, shape, and frequency of a posited Information “gap”) evolution, beginning with proto-history, and continuously evolving, articulating, speciating Language systems, and diversifying to the current moment, within each of us individually, and within our Species as a Self-reflected Narrative String. Our reflection on this shared, but emergent, Language-speciated, rhetorical evolution is what we call “history,” within Physics, and “Religion=Re-Legein,” to re-transpose, to transliterate, with each other, in Metaphysics.
Literature, and the “Humanities” more generally, is our history’s survival of the richest value symbols, and rhetorical functions. It follows, then, that “rhetoric” is not fully understood as an “event,” any more than math is best understood as “numeric.” Rather, any Boson, including any type of event, is Yang/Yin relationship-based. Our Species Information System is prime rooted in Eulerian binary-functional Relationship; not a variable. Buckminster Fuller, Robert Pirsig, Robert Norton, Ptolemy, Pythagoras, Origen, Confucius, Remi, Muhammad, Wayne Teasdale, David Bohm, Leonhard Euler, Grigori Perelman (another reclusive holistic (0) values-centric neural system), and maybe even Solomon, have been repeating this implicate-within values theme for a few centuries now. Our survival as a planet depends upon our waking up and remembering this, which we have known all along, implicately, evolving harmoniously toward explicated, without, Species Full-Color memory.
Ivy stirs and murmurs, trying to remember herself as part of this strangely diverse family. Daquan alternates between his Angelman stare into the Metaphysics Dept. distant center, and his more Physics Dept. desire for a bath in the whirlpool tub. As do I, more or less.
Hypothesis C: We fear to die alone,
Hypothesis D: But long to fly together.
Hypothesis E: We learn to die,
Hypothesis F: To fly,
Hypothesis G: Forever.
Who could ask for anything more?
Kay Swift
Day 16
“16,” the double-octave. Two weeks and one day ago, I started this project thinking it was a journal entry on a retreat day; probably the longest one yet, but nothing like an 8-day, full octave-scaled project. Then, as I was circling on, and through, last Columbus Day Weekend, I thought, maybe another 3 or 4 days, or maybe, possibly, as long as the remainder of this year. That thought provoked a moderately dark cloud.
Now, I’m really confused. Because, if I imagine ways I could use parts of what I have written over the past 15 days, maybe this is really just a continuation of my Notes Journal, except as narrative. Maybe it ends, when my brain and my hands can’t do this anymore. Or, maybe today, or maybe in another 8 days after this, or maybe most anywhere in between. But, I tend, at this point, to imagine in octaves, and in multipliers of octaves. Although, of course, I can’t really quite deductively justify as a rational way to go. Or can I?
This is so much so, that I had trouble remembering why Day 16 is the day of closure on the binary-octave, and yet “two weeks and one day ago” seemed like it should be “15”, because, after all, “15” is 2(7) day weeks +1 = 15. So, why is today Day “16”, rather than day “15”. And, that difference has to do with this mathematical boundary issue we have about the function of Time.
The answer is obvious when I take a moment to explicit-ly reflect: “16” = P is the number of entries that have been started and will be completed, up to the moment, when I turn my Left-hemisphere to think about the explanation for the number “15”.
“15” (NP) is the number of 24-hour days that have been the implied manifold for this project, to date. Assuming the world does not end today, as of this writing I feel quite confident that we will all stumble our way through this day, and evening, without killing each other off. So, 16 is the numeric symbol for this Polynomial Time function e. While 15 is the numeric symbol for the undetermined Non-Polynomial Time Manifold (M) that wraps around this Project variable x=15Numeral Revolutions to date. This temporal sequential scale of Numeric Bosons that have transpired from 12 midnight two Sunday mornings ago, until midnight tonight.
Now, here is the mathematical Thought Problem, like the ones I always hated in grade school, except, of course, when I could figure them out. Then, and only then, I thought they were actually pretty cool! Especially if it seemed like the writer of the Problem was intentionally trying to lead me astray somehow.
What, in this situation, is the correct log-arithm-metic for calculating the number of days I have worked on x? P+NP = 16e/15M. In this example, 15 consecutive…. Well, that’s going to be an irrational mess of an answer because it doesn’t really give me any significant information about my original question. I mean, I was sure I could figure out why s16 has a different numeric symbol than M15. What I really meant to try to figure out was how to hold e16+M15 both in my mental space with balanced proportion at the same time. How to think “right” about my confusion over this apparent numberical paradox. Or how to learn the Truth of the moment.
Because the front-edge of the “1st Day Boson” is not (0)-Prime Core Vectored in sync with the front-edge of the “Number of Project Event Bosons Opened” Calculation String, and it is (0)-Prime Core Vectored in sync with the closure, back-edge, “Project Event Bosons Closed” Calculation String. So, imagine that this Project is to make a pearl necklace. Each day you tie a knot in a string, then you slip one large round pearl down the string and over the knot to the exact center of the pearl, where there is a mid-point cavity to accommodate the knot’s otherwise snug fit. The number of knots on your string is the number of daily Project events begun. The number of pearls on your string is the number of pearls on your string, indicating how many Project events have been completed. See that knot there that you just put in this morning? Notice why the pearl isn’t covering the knot yet? Right. Exactly. You’re not done yet.
Much to my surprise, and delight, I heard from Dr. Robert Norton last night, at shocking length. Loquaciousness far beyond recent memory. It reminded me of being in my late adolescence/young adulthood and listening to his passion, to the way his mind works around a word, an idea, the rhythm and boundaries of ideas.
In his way of seeing things, this PermaCulture Meta-Physics Project is about un-fracturing communication. Optimally valued, optimally confluent, optimally enthymematic communication is clear of dissonance, chaos, the uninvited, although that is not quite the same, somehow, as the unexpected; it not only stays clear of boundary issues, it remains as Core Vector () Harmoniously Radiant as possible, because this is what is indeed expected, hoped for, waited for. When optimally successful, Communication not only leads to a synaptic moment of insight about oneself, but also about one’s Universe, or one’s Manifold, or whatever the hell else we might possibly imagine in any one temporal moment Boson. In these moments we bring together two or more things that had been seen as fractured in some way, as irrational, with some form of implied “Boundary.” The synaptic moment recognizes a new metaphoric relationship between the explicate x Spaceship Earth and the implicate M temporal-function Universal Time .
If we narrow our Thought Problem to a more specific question: What is the number of days that have come to closure (NP=15) since the start day of completed Project Event-P 16? Why is NP not consistent with P? Because your bicameral perspectives are having a disagreement about how, more precisely, we are choosing to define “Event Closure Day.” Do we mean I did my thing today, so my “Event Day” is done? Or do we mean this event day will follow 12-Base duodecimal Calculating System constraints, defining “Event Day Closure” as midnight tonight. In this Problem, the answer is 16/15 equals what, exactly—some weirdly irrational number that couldn’t possibly be of any rational interest to any rational person. Right?
So part of this problem of irrationality seems to be related to how we choose to calculate Time function. Closure of P or closure of NP, in this moment? While I tend to default to P (I seem to gravitate toward forward temporal focus, what I know in this Moment, rather than back toward Manifold Storage Metrics. I’m not sure this is necessarily true for everyone. In fact, I rather suspect it is quite the opposite for some.
Well, both, really. I mean I want to know both. OK, so the answer is, under the assumption that you need to get Ivy ready for school, because she slept in this morning, and then you have a lot of other stuff to day today, this is your last paragraph for the day, then the answer is, if the number of s-functions is 16, then the number of M-functions is 16, because you explicated your LIE Group frequency in anticipation that you would accept on prior experience that the M-function is to be counted in 24-hour “smooth structured” metric units = M/e = 1/0 = NP/P. Whether I keep myself P=Me, temporally focused as (0) Prime Core, I do just fine. But, when I go ino that NP=Other, temporally focused as (1) Prime Core, I start worrying way too much about what other people are going to think. I lose my Values center, my Health center, my Heart center, my soul goes weird.
Therefore, P=NP, or it really ought to, I think, in the best of all possible worlds, in any one moment, because, in that moment, NP=P, and Polynomial Time e Information Value is always Fractal-based. This, then, forms the cognitive “mental 3-dimensional space” of our bicameral minds in any one functional moment. Function leads to form, and form leads to function. As within, so without; as without, so within.
Information in Polynomial Time is implicately 0-Centered/4-Fractally square-rooted in any metric Zeta-e, within any rationally cognizable Universe M. We are not capable of imagining a space/time “Bubble” [Boson] in any one moment AND imagine it moving at the speed of light as “Self Plus Not-Self” other than linearly, as a Time-stream. We can predict this moment to the extent we can re-image it transposed, coming toward us from behind, growing, evolving from an amorphous cloud into tiny dots and dashes, then growing into the outline of sky and sea, but then suddenly there I am in my environment, but somehow I am suddenly not imagining me riding along on Spaceship Earth’s Magic Carpet. I am looking down at the top of my balding shaved fuzzy head looking at this space, searching for the next word, letter, moment. My Left-hemisphere’s I-Narrative Memory Storage seems to be structured differently than my Right-hemisphere’s Self/Other, 1 or 0, P or NP, to be or not to be Coding System. It’s not that they are incompatible. It’s just difficult to perceive, maybe conceive, perhaps even transliterate them simultaneously.
David Bohm’s demonstration of a more-viscous, heavier, fluid being introduced into a less-viscous fluid, rotated into dispersion with their combined trajectories moving in one direction, to dissolution, then reversing the direction to watch the e-function liquid re-emerge from the M-frequency manifold, provides visual support for the observation that Polynomial frequency is implicately ordered within an explicated Universe M, as P + NP = return to where you started. Time Traveling is extravagantly more fun if I imagine myself as a rich mahogany blob of molasses in a huge fish bowl of Virgin olive oil, then slowly reversing the spin back to where my current narrative string begins.
The reason, I think, it is so very difficult to think out loud with each other effectively, and specifically, is because communication and Information become so wound up around each other. Our frequencies, or at least my frequencies, quickly become jumbled. Which level was implicate and which level is explicate, what is “within” and what is “without?” Our metaphysical values and physical memories transpose places as we move from now, to recall/memory, to future/prediction; as they do when we move from “love,” to “faith,” to “hope.” They are the three faces of Eve. It helps me to remember that euthymematic communication doesn’t even begin to be the hope of a conversational transaction until we have at least successful iteration from Point A° to Point Not-A¹, and back again to Point A². The rhythm of Information is trigonometric, as Fuller noted,
Stage 0: Notice,
Stage 1: Understand as T or F,
Stage 2: Accept as T, =
Stage 3: Replicate.
This trigonometry culturally repeats from our earliest proto-history to the Age of 8-fold Information bytes.
A little while ago my friend Catherine came to some understanding, I think, about why some people, herself included, might sometimes place her communication style under the rather vague category of “Bitchy.” This may have something to do with the reverse/transposed view of her genius, the ability to recognize a full range of communication dynamics within any one rhetorical event, while making full use of her translation acumen to share what she notices to see if others in her small groups notice something highly effective or highly not-effective.
With intuitive speed, Catherine can return to our Right-hemisphere “grayscale” cultural roots of translating across exegetical “Truth” frequencies. If you conjoin R. Norton and J. Jaynes stage theories of shared narrative development, the heart of successful communication is found in the more physically explicated frequencies of pre-linguistic Information: facial cues, vocal rhythm and pitch, body movement. These are far older than the use of symbols and tools, and far more pervasively accessible as Information across species. Most of us do not think of birds as being linguistic, but they certainly seem to get their essential Information transfers accomplished through rhythm, pitch, and movement frequencies. Especially bats, who rely on this same information source to spatially locate environmental density, although the entire system doesn’t work very effectively when there is too much high frequency traffic, like when you turn the light on in the attic. It’s hard to find you when you are about the same amount of light as is the wall. Especially if you are screaming!
Catherine, like Norton, is interested in populations where the linguistic narrative function (P), e.g. You are not me!, is not optimally resonant with, in fact, sometimes even dissonant with, the implied Non-Polynomial frequencies of Information transfer. OK, so did she mean that the way it sounded, reminding us of some kind of Boundary issue, or was she merely pointing out what has become increasingly obvious during her entire unending rant? Perhaps both.
I notice that Person A seems to “talk the talk” but doesn’t appear to “walk the walk.”
Do I understand Person A’s message as True or False or Maybe, in this moment?
Well, I am likely, given our cultural Communication coding history, to choose “False,” but, I also factor in the explicit history of what I know of Person A, so I may choose “Maybe,” for now.
So, we don’t get to a full Information-exchange iteration that has the potential to form the Replicate Information e-function. Temporal function is measurable as “Real” only in the context of Fractally formed “Me-Narrative Moments.” When dissonance interferes with understanding as “True,” then there is a failure to communicate, but not necessarily failure to transfer implicate-order Information frequencies. In other words, that Person B appears non-responsive to my intended message tells me “Not-Sync”; but it does not tell me whether Person B coded x as “False” or “Maybe.” To achieve a complete Information Fractal, I need to think of a way to try to Replicate effectively, including the possibility of asking Person B for feedback. Essentially, that’s what Catherine does, into Infinity. Which is why she can come across as, well, kind of “bitchy.”
But, really, she’s just asking permission to reverse the Time Machine of information’s evolution, to see if we can, together, explore where the potential fracture of dissonance began. If she didn’t care, she wouldn’t ask. And with her, when she asks a question its almost always a real request for an Information transfer attempt from me to her. Not that other kind of question which is really just kind of a bitchy invasiveness.
Not WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT!!!!!!!!!(?)
But, Could you help me be sure I understand what those words mean to you?
Day 17
When Robert Norton was downloading his Truth into me a couple evenings back, he mentioned Truth Or Consequences, New Mexico. This stuck in my memory in part because I remember driving by T or C the year my parents retired not far from there, and where my mother continued to live for as long as she could after my dad died a couple years later, melanoma, farmer’s disease. I always wondered what the backstory was for a town named Truth or Consequences,sounded kinda metaphysical for the name of a place, especially because the immediate locality was known for its hot springs. Perhaps a more obvious choice for a name? Maybe a more “real” choice, in some sense.
Until 1950, what is now known popularly as T or C, New Mexico, was known as Hot Springs. In response to a popular radio show contest, the Hot Springs residents turned their backs on their mundane nature-based label, to achieve the notoriety of being associated with a quiz show about historical “Truth.” So, what truly is the locality’s name? I suppose the best answer to that truth question depends on your “Rhetorical Moment” frame of reference. It would be difficult to argue against the more panoramic truth of deciding for both Hot Springs and T or C, or they kinda messed up in the same way that we got the Constitutional Right to Bare Arms, rather than the more appropriate Constitutional Right to Protect Your Community From Harm. Could we reverse history and insert my language into the Constitution, and remove the one about the right to have a gun to defend yourself, then we have a reverse causality discussion about the legal right an individual might have to carry around a concealed pistol in the privacy of his own home in case he decides he needs to shoot an unarmed intruder. With a Constitutional Right to Protect Your Community From Harm narrative string, it probably would have occurred to ourselves before now that putting a gun in the hand of every nut job in the 50 States, especially in dense, over-populated, impoverished and marginalized, self-medicating Communities, probably not consistent with your Community’s Constitutional Right to protect yourselves as a Community. Clearly it is less risky to be with each other if we know that none of us are carrying around ballistics to aim at each other.
There are Consequences for our decisions about how to split up our historical documentation; for what we choose to include, to recognize, to judge as proportionate and good, to give priority. While the name Truth Or Consequences has always stood out for me, looking back over my six decades, and our past six centuries, and then our past 4 millennia, give or take, the more intriguing narrative string about culture, and history, and truth, and human calculation, and judgment, prefers Truth And Consequences.
Complex power and communication issues about fractured truth and fracturing consequences exploded into my less than serene “normal” daily routine yesterday when two of West Hartford’s Finest, in full uniform, sauntered cautiously up our driveway, while Dillen and Spencer, in the garage with Daquan, just home from school, watched with growing apprehension; as did I. What would be the truth of this Boson Event? The opening overture was in an apprehensive, dissonant key of fear.
It turns out that a small amount of marijuana particles, enough to be visible if you were looking for them, had emerged from an Elmo toy, along with its pungent fragrance, into the olfactory and visual receptors of Ivy’s school Social Worker. The police officer calmly continued with the documented, but not entirely protocol-filled story, of the Social Worker calling CT’s not-so-illustrious Department of Children and Families (DCF) wearing the professional hat of a “Mandated Reporter.” The beleaguered DCF Social Worker staffing the 24-hour Hot Line may or may not have asked the School Social Worker if he had attempted to contact the family before calling DCF, although under the circumstances of no precedent and no explicit indicators of anything resembling abuse or neglect this would have been a “Mandated Reporter Protocol” question, but most certainly did lead to the School reporting the incident to the West Hartford Police Dept. At that point, the police had no regulatory option other than to appear in my driveway.
Upon learning this backstory, I immediately found my hypothetial “truth” of what had happened. Dillen and friends had been out partying in my car, again, the night before, leaving their offending residue on the backseat and floor, waiting to cozy up to Elmo’s red fluffy fur (not smooth-structured “hair,” as Whoopi Goldberg repeatedly corrects Elmo during Ivy’s all-night repeat performances of “The Best of Elmo”). I recall Ivy throwing Elmo around in the back seat, following her standard operating hyperactive procedure, while I dropped into Dillen’s sub-basement driver’s seat setting, and absent-mindedly pushed the front window “DOWN!” buttons due to the all-too-toxic smoky stench of the interior. Unfortunately, my own olfactories are not up to the task of distinguishing one “smoky” from the other.
I first noticed the fractured speciation of “Truth” when I listened, with appalled horror, to the police officer’s response to my explanation. From his reasonable perspective and experience, a worst-case scenario prediction of our future narrative trajectory was: (1) documentation of the Elmo+marijuana incident falling into the Notice position of potential “risk of injury to a minor.” (2) Should a similar Event become documented, one way or another, then the legal paradigm would Understand as True that I had demonstrated a pattern of negligence by allowing my 18-year-old Dillen to continue partying in a car registered to me. While this is not, in and of itself, risk of injury to a minor, it is grounds for confiscating my car, maybe, although maybe not, because in Connecticut trace amounts of marijuana may lead to a fine, but not to criminal procedure consequences. (3) If I were to accept as “True” the Officer’s worst-case synopsis, then I was further invited to travel with him downstream to similar worst-case scenarios that included a situation when DCF had forced a parent to “kick out” a repeat-offender 16-year-old son, creating a homeless youth, or have the parent’s younger children removed from her home. There seemed to be no doubt in the Officer’s mind that this historical precedent was not only True, but also “Right.” (4) That was the horrified moment when I Noticed that the Officer’s legal Truth paradigm had splintered off from my ethical Rights paradigm. Having spent over a decade as a frustrated Child Welfare Policy Reform Advocate, I recognized this fracturing of our optimized cultural Truth paradigm, where what is true and what is right no longer share the same riverbed.
True answers are rooted in historical narrative strings.
Not-Real answers are rooted in cultural narrative strings.
Right answers are rooted in Code strings. Optimizing the explicated Power Scale for (0) Core Vector Primes, for all Bosons Coded as 2, for “True”=1, and “Not-Real”=(-1) = (0)
This, I think, well illustrates double-bind Information Fractal Replication. I had to step outside my “Self” Information Fractal to hold both the Officer’s Truth paradigm and my own Not-Real paradigm together, synergetically, to recognize this specific speciation event within this specific Narrative Gestalt. We did not understand what was optimized cultural “Truth” in this situation in the same way. If he saw our history and future trajectory using the same salient Information patterns that I did, then he would have been appalled by the uncivilized, unprofessional, anti-social, anti-family, anti-Human Rights fracturing of Truth. I forgot not to raise my eyebrows, and to keep my mouth totally frozen. When I later shared the Officer’s Legal v Moral prioritization narrative with them, Dillen was self-righteously incensed, while Spencer seemed sad, and anxious. Generally, our kids get this stuff. Maybe it’s coded into our Right hemispheres.
Again, from a different direction, a different story, I go back to Jaynes’ imagined campfire Language development of proto-history, with a Right brained dominant Species, receiving early shared Information signals within a Community-Boson. Our Species’ evolution toward “True” v. “False” would have been more like a carpenter’s or pyramid-builder’s or musician’s or Dreamwalker’s sense of proportion, flow, rhythm, pitch, goodness, rightness, confluence; as contrasted to dissonance, chaos, confusion, fracture, torq, dissolution, imperfect proportion, askew, queer. Analogically conveyed and emotively perceived “rightness” and “correctness” are our Species’ antecedents to logical and calculated and digitally symbolized “True” v. “False.” The absolute expectation of truth v. falsehood assumes, without evidence, that Polynomial and Non-Polynomial are not symbiotically merged in our (0) Core Vector, as if they were not mutually and proportionally defining, and e-merged from a Yang/Yin smooth-structured LIE Group.
The “Truth” of our culture’s Law and Order paradigms are embedded in the more ancient wisdom of relative and allegorical Truth, as seen through the confluent lens of Right. That we live in a society that accepts the disparities between the exegetical role of Law/Order and the exegetical role of Ethics/Morality is a huge Species-level “gumption trap.” I have one son, my brilliant Spencer, and myself, for whom this disparity is so eisegetically intolerable that we are uncomfortable identifying with our embedded and historically empowered-overwhelming Black Manifold. Either we are insane, or our society is insane, and no representative of any police department will ever persuade either of us that we are the ones who are crazy, and wrong, and un-True to our Prime Relationship.
Last night I received Spencer’s first, and hopefully last, suicide ideation warning note. In reading it, I was horrified to recognize my minority-identified “sissy” self at 16.
Day 18
Ivy, Daquan, and I woke up at 2:30 AM. Ivy, to talk for a minute, at emphatic length, to her imaginary friends before relaxing on her back again, splayed out exhausted, but smiling and drifting off. Daquan thought it was imperative that I recognize the urgency of his diaper situation; a subject about which Ivy has no apparent interest, with regard to her own overnight diaper. I needed to pee, yes, but even more urgently I had to write down the
Prime-Genetive Wisdom Psalm
- Our Binary “One,”
- Implicated without,
3. (0)-based is our Language.
- Our 1=(0) be Primed,
Implicately, as Explicately.
- Optimized Polynomial Value-translations,
Predict Non-Polynomial smooth-structure frequency densities.
- Predicting implicated speciations,
As revolution binds explicated fractures,
As self-forgiveness, self-forgetfulness, unbind implicated fractures.
- And avoid irrational fracturing of Information,
By explicating speciated Truth from Rightness.
- For Prime-Rooted is the explicated Manifold,
And the Prime Relationship empowered,
And the smooth-structured “soul” Beauty and Goodness,
Permaculture regenerating, in Equipoised Creativity.
It doesn’t seem to work well with Handel’s pitch and rhythm, although the general movement of the piece as a whole appropriately ebbs and swells. What has come down through the Christian tradition as the Lord’s Prayer follows an octave structure, culminating in the Doxology in the 8th position. Notice that the front half of the octave is bare-bones indicative of a more explosive and explicit second half.
The Lord’s Prayer follows a Psalm literary structure, and was translated into liturgical and other mystical Narrative Traditions before St. Jerome’s translation into Latin in the 300s. Since Jerome, many versions have evolved. Thomas Ludeken compiled 83 versions in the late 1600s, including three in fictional philosophical languages. Buckminster Fuller himself, in a partially captured oral tradition, created several, without any apparent attempt to put any one of them to writing, or to remain consistent in word choice as he allegorized from one day to the next. My Night Flight-induced Wisdom Psalm has considerable philosophical and historical precedent. So, OK, perhaps somewhat certifiable, but probably, worst case, harmless.
Returning briefly to the 300s, looking over our fellow historian’s shoulder, we find the Hieronymus Megiserus of his day encountering the phrase “Lead us not into temptation.” This is the only phrase of the Lord’s Prayer Manifold that has no precedent in Judaic Scripture. Rabbi A. Mendes Chumgceiro speculates this is because the “Truth” of an omniscient Power leading our Species astray with some active mischief contradicts the Judaic exegetical orthodoxy of Yahweh as both loving and “Right.” We simply could not have made that type of segregation prior to the time of, well, maybe about the time of Christ and St. Jerome. It would have been Right-hemisphere irrational; not conceivable.
For Christ, as for Jerome, our words “temptation,” “trial,” “test,” “trespasses,” and “sin” clustered around our words “evil,” “horror,” and “terror,” in explicated, without, as well as within spatial-temporal frequencies. Jerome quoted Vergil to describe his eisegetical within experience of hell, “on all sides round horror spread wide, the very silence breathed a terror in my soul.” To “forgive us our evil” as we forgive others’ evil, may have been a way of expressing the dark side of the Golden Ratio, as within, so without; and as without, so within. Yet this darkly breathing silence, the absence of all that is Good and Beautiful, inserted here, without exegetical cultural precedent seems significant to the history of how Truth could culturally and linguistically segregate from Right.
I can see the theological “Problem of Evil” emerging, and Kuhn’s Problem of Incommensurability. “Evil” is becoming explicated, individualized, becoming a moral/ethical issue at the individual level, emerging from its roots as a moral/ethical issue at the Community/Species level. If any Boson has the power to behave Righteously, without also being “True,” then the universe becomes more complex, and less rational, and, to repeat, as without, so within. This is madness; the birth pain speciation of evil and chaos and irrationality in their modernizing, civilizing, ethical and scientific garb.
By contrast, going back a few hundred years, notice that Vergil’s sense of environment-induced foreboding, “on all sides round horror spread wide,” echoes an inhalation of terrifying silence. This is a deadly stillness transaction of horror without matching terror within, “sync”ing with widespread horrifying nothingness. The fear of being autistic, alone, isolated, banned to white-sound consciousness only. The opposite of Good, Right, True, and perhaps even “Light,” is not a “power of evil” but more like our “nature abhors a vacuum.”
All that said, it remains unclear to me why my Wisdom Psalm moves from the moral realm of asking forgiveness for a wrong to “predicting” fractures. Wouldn’t it suggest less hubris to think about “explaining” fractures, although that still leaves us in air so thin we suspect a vacuum of reason? How or why would “forgiveness” be associated with “explanation,” much less “prediction?” Word choices like madness and eccentricity come to my Left hemisphere more readily than genius and rationality. And yet, there was that Prime Relationship way back, in travels with Samuel Norton, that held together, as Stages 1, then 2, Purgation and Sublimation, to reach the enthymematic offering platform of Calcination; “Calculation?”
Day 19
Wild yeast (Yin Energy) does not harm domestic yeast (Yang Energy) except with regard to its domesticated limitations. Speaking teleologically, domestic yeast is no less alive or fully functional as a healthy, living organism just because it is overpowered for its more controlled, mundane, domesticated purpose of leavening bread. On the other hand, wild yeast is so much more powerful that it is used to kill toe fungus. It is a benign power if we more narrowly focus within the yeast species, leaving aside our human species ideas about our self-interests. So too, the right hemisphere intuitive intelligence is not a threat to left-brained linguistic/analytical intelligence. Rather, in transformational-creative balance, they are a Mid-Functioning yang-over-yin Value-sustainable equilibrium—like being able to eat your yeast and clean out with it too. The tricky part is being able to see their mutually-informing relationship in the same M moment.
I remember a class on spirituality and mysticism when I was in graduate school. The Religious Sister Professor had assigned an essay by William James, if I remember correctly, in which he argued that the perfection of spiritual accomplishment is most logically learned from the great mystics. Being exegetically recognized, James reasons, as the “Most Excellent” at what you do by your spiritual community is a reasonable indicator of what we should all aspire to do and think and be to achieve the highest Value Metrics in our own lives. This made sense to me, up to a point. My problem was that I disagreed that James was limiting himself to a logical argument; rather his “Truth” value was rooted in an analogy.
To make my point I used a parallel analogy. Following James’ line of reasoning, one could argue that the best way to understand how to most thoroughly warm a house would be to wildly torch the entire heating system, then stand back and watch your house burn down. Twenty years later, I look at this analogy of an analogy and recognize that the logical structure of the parallel allegory was accurate, but there is still something wrong about it. While logically Right-Reasoned, the analogical Truth remains inductively unsatisfying; more of a “Maybe.”
It depends on my temporal range. If I want to see how fast I can heat up my internal and external fires toward some synaptic, revolutionary event, then the Mad Mystic and the house fire are somewhere near the upper end of the high frequency octave, moving toward perhaps disastrous closure. If I want to see how long I can sustain my optimally Abundant Value Development Boson, then I am looking to maintain that (0) Core Vector sense of balance between my wild yeast intuitive Exformation channel and my domesticated yeast deductive Information channel. PermaCulture Continuous Value Improvement Standards always slap +/-(0) Values on that Metaphysically calculated meridian, and try to drive our narratives right across the middle of the dotted yellow path.
Whole Systems, Calculation, Prediction, Explanation, Truth, Right, Reason, Temporal, Spatial, Power, Balance, Logic, Analogy, Law, Order, Goodness, Grace, Learning, Loving, Proportion, Implicated and Explicated, Within and Without, Bosons, Functions, and Forms, and their underlying Frequencies all dance in my head during the long silent, dark hours of my chaotic dreams. They are disturbing; perhaps maddening. I worry about that. Do we travel through madness to derive genius, or is madness the wild yeast, while genius is that long-sustained dream about what I could be if I were most fully myself, inclusive of my eisegetical “madness?”
I took the unprecedented risk of sharing my concern about mental illness indicators with my partner, Jerome, this morning. No one who knows me intimately is more thoroughly imbued with U.S., both-feet-on-the-floor, bi-culturally-stamped “NORMAL!” than Jerome. I told him that I am fairly sure I am either onto something that is remarkably unprecedented in our Species’ historical narrative about ourselves as a speciated Information Code Re-Creation “string,” or more mundanely insane, and probably not leaving much room for anything in between. I was surprisingly emotional and relieved when he immediately said, You’re not crazy. I have always loved you for your intelligence.
He then went on to about my out-telligence, some of the ways I drive him crazy, but I wasn’t listening by that time; which may have been one of the items on his list.
I believe it was 1975, the year I graduated from the University of Michigan, when I read Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It may have been Robert Norton who recommended I give it a try, despite my aversion for anything having to do with maintenance, much less motorcycles, and my total ignorance of Zen. I was immediately transfixed, mesmerized, fixated, haunted, terrified. How did Pirsig know the Narrator in my own within voice? Much later I learned that Pirsig and I had a similar event when we were about age nine.
I recall my farm-matriarch Mom coming into my green asbestos-tiled classroom during lunch, hands thick and red from milking the cows that morning. My teacher, impossibly tall and thin, and raven haired, had told me she wanted to talk to me for a few minutes with my mother, so I would be walking to the cavernously loud cafeteria for my lunch of slightly-warmed canned peas a little late. The three of us are awkwardly standing in the middle of the classroom, yet still alone, when Mom tells me she just came from the Principal’s Office (Yikes!—this couldn’t be good news). My circle-the-oval-carefully! learning test results are on his desk. The Principal asked my Mom to come in (because I didn’t stay within those little ovals’ lines carefully enough) because the testing people came up with “200,” but remember this number is unreliable because the test is not designed for high school age kids. The best they could suggest is that I may be ready to work at the 11th or 12th grade level. Mom, and my teacher, may have said more, but I wasn’t listening by that time.
I am picturing myself running around our large high school, in a town even further away from my farmer’s kid home, surrounded by classmates whose stomachs are at about eye level, and I’m totally invisible to them. Having an older sister, Connie, already in high school, I know for a fact that none of them will be interested in climbing trees or building forts or playing “school” with their little sisters’ dolls and stuffed animals.
I could not have predicted the results of that test, numerically, or in terms of the implications for my life. I had no explanation for how this apparently freak accident had happened. Yet, that it must have been a fluke, magic, unexplainable, comparable to wildly and consistently rolling the same number on dice for however many consecutive times, without having any intention of doing so, or any perceived precedent for doing so, was my eisegetical resolution.
I never heard another word about that test. This Memory Boson went in the same family secret closet, undated, and unstamped as either True or False as my proclivity for playing with dolls and knitting, and my lack of proclivity for anything having to do with a ball or heights or speed or aggression. For Ten Million Dollars, can you name the pyramid containing the following items?
Sex
Politics
Loneliness
Death
Craziness
Hatred
Shame
Yes, that’s right, Things that are Best when Not Re-Membered.
In the early 60s, rural Midwest, among evangelical Christians, it was exegetically understood that too-smart sissy boys grew up to be full-time sociopaths, sometimes institutionalized, sometimes hidden in dark, silently breathing bedrooms, protected from their own insanely wild vices. Most certainly not a Memory Boson to be exposed to “regular” people; an actively wild disvalue to society. Like mystics, high-risk incendiary devices of no more value to exploring Reason than torching Culture to see what it looks like in full-flame.
I’m revisiting Hans Christian von Bayer’s description of QBism (Scientific American, 10/13, p. 8), “The example I chose to illustrate the difference between Bayesian and frequentist probability…is perhaps too extreme. Consider instead a series of real coin tosses made by a real person. Ten heads in a row is rare but not unusual. How about a 100, or 1,000, or a million? There is no rational reason to suspect foul play if any of these cases occur because all are possible even under fair conditions. Yet a reasonable person would begin to smell a rat after some (implausible) number of heads. The value of that number differs from observer to observer and is therefore subjective. Frequentism makes no allowance for this normal human behavior, but Bayesianism does.”
When does informative data suddenly reveal itself as exformative disinformation? When does experience bathed in the presumptive glow of Orthodox Reason, flip to the twilight before Eisegetical confusion and self-doubt?
Precisely, the Frequentist Calculator doesn’t try to explain the unexplainable, other than to use the label “Random.” It is enough to say that random sequential event patterns happen, but, as Noticers, we trend toward tentatively labeling any fissure in standard temporal frequency [also known as SOP—standard operating procedure] as the sequential event pattern emerges and sustains, continuing to repeat outside a business as usual time-frame. This temporary Notice label may be marked Hello!!!! Not Reasonable in here! Can anybody else hear me, or am I the only crazy person this is happening to?
I could not have predicted, so I cannot explain, or positively label, the causes of this anomalous temporal pattern. It’s just my unlucky nightmare, for now, probably everyone in the room will wake up fairly soon? When we do wake up, Noticing the temporal fissure, and confirming it by acknowledging it to each other, then we start looking for the Memory Boson string Source. The REAL Reason. Maybe we come up with an associated pattern Memory Code Meme: Loaded Dice Experience.
The Bayesian Theory of Physics calculates the Notice as True (experiential, eisegetical Memory Boson of all that weird dice throwing coincidence) v. Real (temporal business as usual frequency) response trend pattern to predict newly speciated Narrative “strings.” A crack in the egg of reality was noted on this date, in the Year of our Lord, 2013 AD. If there is no end date, and it goes on for awhile, then we tend to give it a name, a “meme,” like Virtual Reality or cloud-based Information storage and retrieval. If there is an end, but it the string has significant cultural impact then we call it a War (rather than a bunch of people of the same Species strangely trying to kill each other) or 9/11, for those of us in the U.S.
The Bayesian Theory assumes “As within, so without.” If 99% of Noticers say, after 100 throws of the “False-Un-Normal”-face on a 4-faced dye, this is a “Not-Random Temporal Functioning Frequency string that predicts a new Boson M.” We heuristically accept this as valuable potentially-predictive Information, but held in limbo, hades, between In-formed and Ex-formed. A frequencies event pattern in the physical universe is metaphysically predicted to be (0) Core Vector string sourced at position x, in relation to surrounding, apparently significant, related, Polynomial Time positions. This Information does not have the power to explain what is going on here in the explicate order, but it shows strong implied potential for predicting a Non-Random M frequency structure Replication. What happened just before that ugly duckling arrived in the nest? Oh yes, that oversized egg disappeared! Now, where can I find another big egg….
If we can, in the future, again notice this predicted Replication frequency pattern, then we have the further potential Information about what these two M events both did, and did not, have in common. The Information about what was different about the events (Closed Door Exformation) and what was the same about the events (Open Door Information) may lead to a logical-deductive Theory of Explanation for our Predicted M. If so, then two things occur:
- We have a potential “Revolution,” in Kuhnian terms; but maybe a revelation in Metaphysical paradigms.
- We now have the Species capacity to notice a non-random trend, with the potential for Speciation—the evolution of memes, ideas, Information strings, Stories, organisms, paradigms, Traditions, Rhetorical Events, Bosons.
If we can, in the future, again notice this predicted Replication frequency pattern, but the Memory Boson (0) Core Vector of the heuristic string doesn’t “sync” with prior temporally Noticed event strings, then the unexplainable and unpredictable continues. We see another ugly duckling but it was hanging around with those overgrown swans next door—no prior sign of an outsized egg. The ugly duckling meme remains eisegetically-only valued as potential Information 1Polynomial Event Boson, with two un-synced narrative strings sharing the same (0) Notice Vector. We can explain what we mean by a QBism Theory of Physics in a way that predicts a measurable frequency pattern of negatively-labeled Memory Bosons, without needing the power to predict when, how, or why they will show themselves again. We are starting to see these ugly brown-feathered chicks in our community, but what’s causing them, who knows? Let’s just call them autistic, or crazy, or queer for now, until I can figure out what’s causing this fissure in my otherwise smooth-structured way of seeing my world.
We are learning to notice a Boson Information species, even though we can’t predict exactly when we will recognize it again.
Toward that end, I propose an allegorical riddle. I was a young adult reader of Edward de Bono’s “Lateral Thinking.” I especially liked his idea of randomly opening the dictionary to three pages, pointing to the page without looking, writing down the three words thus identified, then trying to think of a fourth word, preferably one that actually exists in some exegetically accepted Language, that creates a metaphor. Then try to write down (explicate) at least one way in which your fourth word, chosen implicately, or intuitively, and the 3 “Received View” words are parallel in their respective binary relationships. So, this riddle follows in de Bono’s tradition.
In what way(s) are
Learning to Creation
Eccentric Explanation to Predictive Power
Quality to Value
Value to Power
Wild Yeast to Domesticated Yeast
Eisegesis to Exegesis
River to Ocean
Polynomial to Non-Polynomial
Rational to Irrational
Culture to History
Logical to Analogical
Physical to Metaphysical
Lie Group to Manifold
Yang to Yin
Left-hemisphere Learning to Right-hemisphere Re-Membering
Analogous, mutually-informing and enriching, metaphors?
My Heuristic Response:
Those in the A position remain implicitly re-cognized in the B position.
When those in the A position and those in the B position are balanced in Left-Right hemispheres they are mutually defining, predicting, and explanatory, If A within, then so B without; and as B explicated, then so A implicated.
A and B are mutually enthymematic.
.
Day 20
Last night I was perusing a text by Leslie H. Miller entitled Understanding Basic Mathematics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), gravitating toward Chapter 4, entitled “Mathematical Thinking.” Professor Miller introduces this chapter by saying it includes some interesting stuff that most students never learn at the Secondary Level, but isn’t really needed to move on to the more advanced stuff, because basically nobody pays it much mind. Sort of a Consumer Warning message in academic circles, but I knew that Buckminster Fuller couldn’t be my only comrade-in-arms who was fairly sure, in some intuitive way, that the way we learned math left out the good parts. And I think I would have remembered if we had ever been introduced to anything like Mathematical Epistemology.
So I get to Table 4.1 which includes Binary to Integer equivalent values. It starts out:
INTEGER BASE 2
BINARY
One 1
Two 10
Three 11
Four 100
Five 101
Six 110
Seven 111
Eight 1000…
Right away I see a problem. I’m fairly sure that’s not right. From everything I have been looking at over the past few centuries, Zero absolutely does function as an Integer in any Binary-Information System. So, on what assumption do we give the Integer “1” the Binary Base 2 Root of 1; why isn’t it (0)? If we are counting the number of potential Prime Relationship functions, the number of potential Information-Bits, then I wonder why it doesn’t line up like:
One 0
Two 1
Three 10
Four 100
Five 101
Six 110
Seven 111
Eight 0/1
That looks more fractally-informed to me. I guess my only point, if I have one at this point, which may be a point to which we will return, at some point, is that how your start, and why, is logically related to what you are thinking about, what is your mathematical function in this particular Rhetorical Moment? What are you counting is functionally related to where your frequency scale is appropriately Core Vectored. How integers, numerals function when communicating about a logical problem can’t be just anything, but, on the other hand, they are not always exactly the same variable function either. What is appropriate for calculating depends on your Core Vector System assumption, and on the dimension of the Manifold you are trying to logically measure, within an Information-based implicate order Pattern of Whole Systems.
OK, I’m really not sure that’s right. Rather than remain up here in the heady waters of theory, let’s look at some calculating problems to see if this idea of a fractally organized Information System adds any clarity, or just further confuses our complexity about why things are as they are.
The Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture, as defined by Andrew Wiles, was implicately proven by Grigoriy Perelman when he proved the Soul Theorem. That is, to paraphrase, when g is the implicated soul of M,and M is the explicated soul of g, then the Zeta function e=M/g = 1/0 and pi = .1n(R) in n-dimensions, because M/g is a “smooth-structured” submersion.
Whether M=1 and g=0, or M=0 and g=1 depends entirely on which binary side of the algorithm the Calculator chooses.
To optimize the Information Value of the algorithm, the Calculator would mutually define each side of the algorithm within the same Prime Relationship Rhetorical Event Moment = Infinite Set (M) .
The old-fashioned way of saying this was called the Golden Ratio: As without, so within; as within, so without. This mathematical implicate “Systemic Assumption” has been around for a few centuries now.
Day 21
The Spirit shall look out through Matter’s gaze
And matter shall reveal the Spirit’s face.
Sri Aurobindo
This Saturday morning I was in West Hartford to help Jerome get Daquan and Ivy ready for their day. With that done, Jerome needed to do a foray into the Saturday morning grocery store shopping experience before I headed here to the Cottage. Which feels alien when I walk in, smelling of bug spray, Open Windows letting in unwelcomed frosty air. Like walking into a refrigerator, rather than a refuge, a silent place—but preferably not a smelly one.
Anyway, while waiting for Jerome, Daquan and I were mutually Angelman staring into each other’s eyes, getting lost, wandering, when I remembered a long-neglected copy of “The Wisdom of Laotse,” edited and with an Introduction by Lin Yutang (Random House, 1948). In the context of history and biography of Laotse (ca, –500) and his Primary Disciple Chuangtse (ca, -450) it becomes clear, whether Yutang explicitly/focally intends or not, that Laotse and Chuangtse, compared and contrasted, respectively embody the Yin and Yang of Tao-cognition.
Interesting that Yutang’s translation of Laotse incorporates his translation of Chuangtse’s commentary about each passage. In doing so, I can look at what must have been a very adept Right-hemisphere dominant use of poetic Language, and a more Left-Right Hemisphere balanced, but perhaps slightly listing to the Left, perspective on that Language by a student of the “Old Man” Master, Laotse.
In Yutang’s Introduction, it becomes clear he is enamored of a particular quote from Laotse, perhaps because it may be the closest approach the Old Man takes toward prediction about his own influence on culture:
When the highest type of men hear the Tao (truth) [Translator’s insert]
They try hard to live in accordance with it.
When the mediocre hear the Tao,
They seem to be aware and yet unaware of it.
When the lowest type hear of Tao,
They break into loud laughter—
If it were not laughed at, it would not be Tao.
If we imagine traveling back to 450 BC, we might imagine that Chuangtze is among the highest type of replicating-potential disciples. A step back to our comparative contemporary, Mr. Yutang himself might be a more modest mediocre Truth understander in Laotse’s ranking.
However, our Editor Yutang follows his translation of this quotation not with his own commentary, but as he introduced it, with laughter. This seems surprising to me. I didn’t initially respond to it with laughter at all. At best maybe a quiet grin here and there, and this a more likely response to Chuangtze’s commentary, rather than what read as “poetry” to me, from the Old Man himself. But, Yutang self-discloses that on his initial Laotse read he often responded with laughter; among the “lowest type” of Truth-hearers. This self-disclosure is followed immediately with the following, “The highest type of scholars end by laughing with Laotse at the preoccupations of the philosophers of the day. After that, Laotse becomes a lifelong friend.” (p. 5)
What kind of wild yeast Scripture is this that predicts to turn the world upside down through laughter? I notice the comparisons and contrasts with the Western Hemisphere’s culture of Trinitarianism/Unitarianism, rooted about 100 AD, with the early disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. Here too we have the prediction of turning the culture topsy-turvy, but the context is about “power.” Which would have included the Language of today’s “medicine,” “health,” “well-being,” “confluence,” “lack of dissonance,” but certainly not laughter, right?
But, then I remembered about Daquan’s laughter. Daquan, my Angelman Son, without linguistic neural organization, he hears in “power” frequencies that are Right-hemisphere rooted in emotion, proportion-expectation, high-confluence default setting, and high-dissonance alert. Daquan smiles when he notices dissonant-from-expected “silent” emotive frequencies; he laughs when he notices, and occasionally even successfully predicts, dissonant-from-expected emotive frequencies. That’s why he is as likely to laugh when someone is in distress as he is to laugh when someone is emoting at an equivalent frequency of confluence, such as when I laugh, or when my movement, gesture, rhythm, and pitch stand out from my “business as usual” temporal frequencies.
Perhaps the origins of differentiating between what sounds good and what sounds evil became Binary-speciated during Left hemisphere Species development. A grayscaled Right-hemisphere Code could be Left-hemisphere reflected as either positive or negative, as the Left-hemisphere develops our Species’ Story. That would fit with Daquan’s laughter. He cries only when his sense of touch lets him know that he is “losing power,” and it hurts, it causes pain, or pressure, or some other sense of dissonance, like dizziness, and seizures. Otherwise, he assumes his capacity to notice “difference” is a good thing; that is his Right/Left Hemisphere Code for “significant difference from known other.” If he can’t feel any pain, or any unusual temporal frequencies such as pressure or restrictions on freedom of movement, associated with the “significant difference transmission from Family” sound frequencies, then he is attained, he hears notice message patterns that stand out like color in a grayscaled emotive universe, and entertained.
Maybe Laotse’s perspective on laughter is “Incommensurable” with mine. Perhaps his lack of attachment to either good or evil, laughing with or laughing at, could be read more deeply than a dismissive, marginalizing, “poetry” transliteration of what was both True (learned from sensory experience) and Real (re-membered from Right-hemisphere Coded Memory Storage) in his historical culture.
Yutang reports he began as the lowest type of Truth-Understander of Laotse, then, in the very next sentence, confuses the “highest type of scholars” with the “lowest type” of Truth-Understanding, as indicated both by their laughter and their “preoccupations” with “the philosophers of the day.” That sentence seems both consistent and inconsistent with both Laotse’s and Yutang’s perspective on Laotse; They seem to be aware and yet unaware of it.
Then we grow in stature with Yutang, according to Yutang’s own prediction, re-positioned in Laotse’s prediction, aware of our own emotional ambiguity, to the “highest type” of Truth-hearer, when Laotse becomes a lifelong friend. At long last, because I really could use a friend right now.
There is a continuing irony in this Yang-Yin reflective conversation across time and space. Perhaps many. But, I note that Chuangtze was no friend to Confucius, but he does seem to have found Confucius amusing. Something of a paradox, especially because Confucius’ power language is like oil in comparison to Laotse’s “power-from-within” water.
Yutang translates Chuangtze as never missing an opportunity to have his rhetorical fun at Confucius’ expense. Yutang also interprets an unmitigated disdain for Confucian understanding of the Not-Tao (unreal understanding), and unmitigated admiration for the wisdom of Laotse. While both of these may very well be historically true, perhaps responding with laughter and not understanding wisdom in Chuangtze’s own time was more of a noticed: maybe True, maybe Not-True, stay engaged than a Confucius understood as Not-True and therefore ridiculously Not-Real. Maybe, just maybe, there are moments in the Chuangtze commentary structure that he intended as more balanced conversation. Perhaps Chuangtze himself was more attracted to his Right-hemisphere than was Confucius. But perhaps he also found it entertaining to notice the more Left-hemisphere emergent perspective of Taoism’s second generation of StoryTellers.
In summary, if we read early Narratives in the “Tao Paradigm” the way they may have been culturally experienced at the time, with a (0)-based Core Vector understanding of power (e.g. health, well-being, medicine) then the gestalt of laughter loses its good/bad distinction, while retaining its more grayscaled “unusual power frequency” Information Code Value.
All I have to do is imagine I am Daquan when I approach “The Wisdom of Laotse,” and Chuangtze, simultaneously. Then I could read to Daquan and perhaps all four of us could have a hilariously wise time.
Laotse’s creation story opens his Book 1. The Character of Tao: 1. On The Absolute Tao.
The Tao that can be told of
Is not the Absolute Tao;
The Names that can be given
Are not Absolute Names.
What I think makes this a Creation Narrative is Yutang’s translation of “Tao” as “Truth.” I compare this to the beginning of the Gospel of John, the Western narrative version.
The Tao that can be the “Word”
Is not the Absolute Tao;
The “Word” that can be given
Is not the Absolute Truth.
In the beginning was the “Word”
And the “Word was with “Absolute Truth,”
And the “Word” was “Truth.”
In the beginning, Prime Relationship True-Left and Real-Right created…
Regardless of where I turn, East through West traditions string back to their Root Prime Relationship.
So, let’s go further back and around and explore our Universal Information Hypothesis that it may be rational to describe the relationship between our Physical and Metaphysical Systems as explicated and implicated, where
f(Yang +.5 QBit/Yin-.5 QBit) = Zeta-(0) = Manifold°.
Let’s further speculate that this metric Language is logically analogous to the Higgs Boson structure. These outrageous analogies, I predict, will give us the capacity to predict/explain further patterns of patterns in our natural and not-so-natural, but relentlessly Polynomial, Formation coding system.
Transliterating Sri Aurobindo:
The Left-hemisphere shall explicately calculate the Right-hemisphere’s confluent-gaze Prime Code
And implicate Yin-function shall reveal the Left-hemisphere looking within.
As within, so without,
As without, so within.
In response to the Quantum Yang-Mills Theory, Arthur Jaffe and Edward Witten.
Here, I fundamentally think I am agreeing with David Bohm, the reason we have the appearance of a calculation anomaly is because of the underlying assumption that quantum mechanics has anything at all to do with spatial functions that a mathematician could logically define as a “particle.”
The “trajectory of a particle” does not mathematically apply to 3-dimensional experience because “particles” are more accurately measured as “noncommuting operators,” as functions, not variables, not particles, not nouns at all; verbs. Quantum physics is about measuring temporal frequencies that have their own inter-functioning Natural Law. Given our Quantum Physics Paradigmatic agreement that we are not calculating Vector “Particles,” but, rather, Vector Power-Frequencies, we are no longer surprised that “The distinction between fields and particles breaks down, since the Hilbert space of a quantum field is constructed in terms of particle-like excitations.”
Non-abelian gauge theory is equivalent to smooth-structured Group Theory, where
Frequency (F) = 0 = dA = dF = d + F
d = +
F=1e
A=1e = Higgs Boson = pi = +.5/-.5 QBit = Binary Prime Universe Metric System
Again, our faithful calculator Grigori Perelman, in reference to Cheeger and Gromoll’s soul conjecture, proved that if we are noticing a Polynomial f, where Manifold A over f = 1, then f = +1/(0). Which, in my wild yeast way of thinking, and noticing, implies, suggests, predicts, proposes to the Right-hemisphere, a Prime Relationship calculated and valued logically as a Binary Core Boson, and analogically as Polynomial/Non-Polynomial = +/- e = 1/0-temporal energy event (e).
While I am no physicist, and a novice to this whole “Epistemology of Calculation” way of seeing the world, I think the above Soul Theorem Proof for the Quantum Yang-Mills Theory has a Corollary:
Any Binary Prime Boson is to Hydrogen as
–e is to +e, as
Not-Energy is to Energy, as
NP is to P, as
ExFormation is to InFormation, as
Before is to After, as
Negative is to Positive, as
Yin is to Yang, as
0 is to 1 = Prime Relationship Core Vector for Universal “Boson” Value Metrics.
And I propose all of this as indicative that “Tao” can be lovingly transliterated, and learned, as equivalent to our exegetically held paradigm of “Real-Value,” while laughing with Chuangtze. Speaking of which, it’s going on 4 pm. Another scarce resource, a brilliant Fall day, now cooler than when last here at the Cottage, windy, starting to frost at night, squandered indoors thinking about math and time, rather than enjoying the Open Door’s richer values as measured by the temporal functions of my remaining days.
I suspect that Laotse was more of a Metric Unitarian/Universalist than his contemporary Confucius, who was, more of a Metric Taoist, in the sense of how they described their understanding of Real-Value. With that as my hypothetical assumption, I choose to read Chuangtze’s Narrative (Narrative is a Code string linear-temporal view of a spatial Information Boson—in Greek, legein) as Trinitarian Value-System Structured. Chuangtze was, in this view, one who can simultaneously see the connection within Tao AND Tao’s form, Laotse’s definition of creation, the Physics Department, and Formation. Formation is the sum of Information and Exformation, as temporal functions are the sum of before and afters, highs and lows, fasts and slows, longs and shorts. Formation is fractally sequenced; a 4-Based Positional System. (pp. 12-13) Formation’s mutually-defining function is the Tao’s connection. Yang and Yin’s 1/0 frequency patterned Prime Relationship includes their Binary, 2-fold, within forms, only in comparison to each other. I have to focus on each of them at the same blended time. I imagine that Chuangtze carried around a Trinitarian Value Code: Yang is to Yin as Tao is to Yang. Tao-Form OVER binary-function, in his bicamerally-balanced Left and Right hemispheres, was what has come down the yellow brick Legein as the Golden Ratio Prime Relationship—God in 3 Bosons.
I readily admit this is how I most confluently understand him, so perhaps I am merely projecting myself into the meaning of his language. But, if our goal, as a Species, is to optimize our learning values, by learning to learn, what better way is there than to search deeply for shared Values, assuming, heuristically, that we are most likely to find them if we choose to understand them as our cultures have long agreed? We are, after all, united in our scientific search for the Golden Truth Boson meeting CQI Exegetically functioning standards; yet not bereft of the deductively domesticated Truth of Eisegetical science.
We seek the Exegetically stamped Code-structure of Truth, should such a Prime Boson exist. Buckminster Fuller geometrically defined this exegetical structure of optimized “Truth + Real+Rightness” as the “prime law of regenerative design.” Essentially, the Yang-Mills “Mass Gap” is defined, explained, predicted as the implicate function (-e) in 4-dimensional proportion to explicated frequency +e. Not-e function 4-fold sync-ed, predicts an energy moment, a balanced plus-plus-minus synaptic Information QBit. Funny, as in laugh-out-loud hilarious, that Yang should show up predicting our “Mass Gap” Boson. Yang-e is the imaginary-only, metric place-holder, energy boundary string that implicately stands-back, backgrounds, our perceived field of external physical events (of interest to Max Tegmark, perhaps to the exclusion of similar interest in the physics of internal physical events—or is that Psychology?). These explicated Prime Event Bosons are the “reverse-strings” between the Exformed Gaps.
My eisegetical Truth is that I am a Unitarian/Universalist, so I am a Taoist, so I am a Trinitarian, so I understand, with highValue expectations, Fuller’s Geometric Synergy Theory—tetrahedral-rooted in a hardy Universalist implicated heart. Fuller was all about tetrahedrons, and their Fractal In-formation ways. Time Traveling between Chuangtze and Bucky Fuller, in the company of Kuhn and Jaynes, is an Open Door wild beast of a cultural ride.
I spent a good share of this Saturday evening on the phone with my younger sister, Kerry. She is my Laotse; I am her Confucius. At my best, maybe her Chuangtze, especially if I stay away from the Devil Math. Anyway, we were talking “Abundance,” both explicitly, and implicitly; focally, and tacitly. Our shared Abundant Wealth Values are about words like home, organic, permaculture, holistic, spiritual, heart-warmth, confluence, and certainly NOT dissonance, and chaos, or transition. Yet change is more neutral, perhaps depending on whether I’m the one who has to change or if it’s the system or somebody else. So I guess change is like transition.
Kerry is going through a major transition. New vocation, new home, new community; loss of former home, former community, former vocation. In fact, it was her eagerness to move toward higher potential abundance in the “vocation” dimension of her journey that motivated her willingness to temporarily forego the accumulated values of her “community” and “home” relationships. Right now is difficult. She discovered last weekend, much to her surprise (and not a Daquan “laughter” kind of surprise), that she cannot go “home” again, as the old adage claims. Home is not just a place where we dream at night, it is also about the family and friends nearby, accessible, with whom we dream, and hope, and learn faith, and love, and experience “power from within,” and lack of power. Loneliness is cushioned by proximity to those known and mutually appreciative. Homes take time to rebuild to their full potential for Abundance. They are indeed where the heart is. Our (0) Prime Socio-Emotional Core.
Transitional beginnings are also transitional endings. There is no significantly new potential for Abundance through Open Gate 2 Enlightenment without simultaneously, or even previously, opening Gate 1 Purgation, loss, abandonment of the prior Boson-Home’s Abundance. It is the middle of our Octaves that, in hindsight, are that Octave’s Golden Era of Abundance, not our Transition times.
Transitions are Speciation Springs that begin the seasons of our shared journey, as individuals, and as a Species. They are periods, vectors, epic points of risk, Boundary Bosons stringing forward to richer potential Abundance (or perhaps we regret our choices—fortunately, not the case with Kerry’s current re-birthing process), but also linked back to the Purgation paid. The promise of Paradise is also Quasi-Paradise Lost; a step into comparative “homelessness,” trusting our judgment and the support of whatever is left of our network, to bridge the Abundance Gap with grace and wisdom. Prime Numbers, like prime relationships, and prime speciation, are all about the beginnings of weakly-implicated strings, creating a new hold where there was no historic pattern; the irrational moments between Abundant In-Formation.
It is no wonder, then, that Prime Numbers continue to perplex our power to predict a pattern of Values.
Day 22
It’s Sunday, 3 weeks to the day of when I started, but this is Day 22 in the PermaCulture Project Manifold M , and PT (Project Time Diurnal Calculating Daily Equivalency Root e-Units, 4-Base Temporal, with E=.1Ld (where “Ld” –Numeric Language dimension=12-based duodecimal Calculating Value Equivalency Metric 1e) + 1-Temporal f-dimension Value Equivalency Metric 4-Base Synaptic [imagine a clock with (0) Core Vector at 12, a (1) in the 4 position, and a (2) in the 8 position, and a (3) in the (0) position].
Thus, in this Story Problem, the Value Equivalency Metrics for space-dimension is .1(3-Ld) x 22 = 2.2 x 3-d = 6.6 = Planck’s Constant-C-Value = CAT Value. The number of unboundaried temporal functional units in a Physical Special Case day.
Value Metric for Temporal Zeta(f)-1e = +.5/-.5/Ld-bits (8-based Octave Resonance/Wave Harmonics/Dissonance CAT Value for predicting “soul” Boson structure = Higgs Boson) = (+e/-e)
Physical/Metaphysical = P/NP [Yang/Yin Balanced Equilibrium 3Pd + 1NP-f/.4 e(f)s = 4/.4 =
1.6 Non-Polynomial Equivalency Assumption, where pi = 1 duodecimal system Special Case f.
s = “string resonate frequencies for optimized synergy (equivalent to 0% QBit + (-1)² QBit and minimized dissonance. Value equivalency Special Case: External Physically Real Heuristic Assumption that P=NP, and Polynomial Time functions = NonPolynomial Time functions, in reverse-only temporal frequency.
The Right-hemisphere 4-Base Binary Q-Bit Equivalency Value in any Geometric Rational QBit-f = .125 Zeta-e Value Scale (see Thurston’s Geometrization Proof, and Grigori Perelman’s soul conjecture proof RE: 100% v. 0% in any (0)Core Vector CAT(k) “space,” the distance between the surface Boundary of the Core Vector and the Metaphysical Sky has been proven to be metrically equivalent to QBit 00.1(100)% = +1 = pi.) . So, 1 stands within a (0) Based Boson at .125f and 2 at .25f, continuing to 1Zeta-f QByte demarcating the Boson mid-submersion radius, with+/(-) Binary Left to Right dimension. Duodecimal, linear temporally imaged Octave.
But, if imaging as emerging Exformatively toward a (0) Fractal Core median between s and M, then it goes from 0.0 to +.5 and then Informatively back toward a (0) Core temporal Special Case Fractal Equivalency level of -0.5 = (). So NonPolynomial Time = Polynomial Time, in reverse.
1f(e) NP-Time “s” = -00.50%Q-Bit-Ld = +00.50% Polynomial dimension-Fractal Q-Bit Heuristic [soul submersion CAT(0) Assumption—temporal frequency Special Linear-Only Case), where Fractal-Explicate Q-Bit P Value = Fractal-Implicate Q-Bit NP Value within any n-dimension—See Grigori Perelman’s “Soul Theorem” and Mikhail Gromov, on CAT(0) space.
The above intends to be a restatement of the Golden Ratio and Golden Rule, regarding PermaCultural Continuous Value Improvement (CVI) Standards for Information Optimization Metrics. With Corollaries:
+/-.125pi-e 4-dimensional Development Stage Left-hemisphere Perspective =
+1/+8 Q-Bit/Q-Byte Right-hemisphere Bicameral Information System L(0)-Zeta Prime Octave Binary-f Core-Vector Smooth–Sync-Lie Group Assumption, Bayesian Trend Development PermaCulture Design
So, here’s the thing. It’s now Sunday evening and already dark outside. And I felt dark on the inside all day. This part of my Value Development Design Project really does not interest me. Part of the problem is that I don’t personally know anyone else who is interested in it. Another gumption-trap in my search for the CVI Optimization Code is that I project myself into Buckminster Fuller’s social-influence trajectory, which was not predicted by my own understanding of his synergetic information of high value for the cultural mythos of his time. His efforts to transliterate between his quasi-Exegetical “True” metric/logos information system and his Exegetical “Real” cultural/mythos information system were about as clumsy as my own.
I feel like I can feel his frustration; actually drawing pictures and diagrams to share his nutritiously rich Legein Code.
Seriously, have you read, or do you know anyone who has read his Synergetics (1975) and his Synergetics 2 (1979)? I do not, including myself, mostly. I mean, I am including all of myself having not read more than maybe 20% of the two volumes. I approach them rather like an Old Geometric Testament (1975) and a New Biometric Testament (1979). Fuller has much more to say, at least to me, about our physical, bionic, Information System, Spaceship Earth, in his newer testament. But, by then, the majority of his cultural audience was over in the Science and Math and Engineering and Architecture and Technology Departments, and they likes their algebra just fine, thank you very much. Fuller’s fellow-Metaphysician readership, since 1979, would probably choose one of his more accessible, and non-metrically challenging, books.
Let’s go with that part of our Species history first. When I was in my young 20s, supposedly working toward a Master’s in Philosophy at San Francisco State, I bought both Synergetics 1 and 2, in hard cover, and spent the time I was supposed to be reading Descartes, reading Fuller.
I mainly laughed, but I was not laughing with him except when he talked about his personal frustrations with the miserable mess of math that we each tried to learn, with nothing akin to grace. Despite Fuller’s Abundantly Valued affinity for both Geometrics and Binary Information Systems Theory, his failure to change our STEM Legein (translated as Logos-Code String, Species Level) was stressful for him. He was not the Wizard of optimizing our Mythos Memory Boson, while writing to the STEM Department.
Fuller suffered from Kuhn’s “Problem of Incommensurability.” He did not regenerate the Global Math Culture with his cry in the wilderness to return to their geometric prime-root. His failing was a lack of “sync,” synergy, between his internally-consistent Information-Code, and his labyrinthine MythosTranslation. I believe everything we need for our global Value-System Design Project is there in Fuller’s Synergetics but he did not give us enough confluent Prime Value Equivalencies. There is no historic explanation to heuristically connect his “synergetics” Language proposal with the Exegetical Received View of the Math paradigm. Hey! Fuller!!!! Over here. This is REAL Math! Please join the party, or don’t bother, but leave us alone, please. Thanks.
A richly nutritious enthymematic proposal into a less fluid (as compared to 2013) Math Community Culture, that was not really asking the questions Fuller was answering at repeated and great length, did not reach its full regenerative potential as an unprecedented synergy between the Permanent Exegetical Real Power string and the Cultural/Heuristic Exegetical Truth Value Legein Boson.
Yes, I am starting to write like he does; with similar effect on my afflicted friends and family.
To be fair, I am confident that what Fuller did accomplish was astoundingly brilliant and ahead of his time. If, for example, Thurston’s Geometrization had folded out into history before 1975, perhaps Fuller would have been able to translate his Synergetic System into Thurston’s Manifold Boson, showing analogical and logical equivalencies of terms, spatial and temporal function/equivalency. But, my prediction of untapped power within Fuller’s Value Trajectory Trend (so far, appearing to be slowly fading since his demise), is related to the first part of my problem today.
If no one is reading Fuller except me, then that would explain why the “Riemann Hypothesis” and the “Existence and Smoothness of the Navier-Stokes Equation” are, to this day, included on the short Clay Millennium Challenge list. It is easy to respond by simply saying Notice, then Understand, Fuller!!!! But, where exactly would one begin?
Fuller tried valiantly to present his Synergetics Boson-Values Geometric/Biometric systems analysis in some semblance of logical order. Yet, it is confusing to try to teach me how to see your world your way when the subject is as poly-mathic as is Fuller’s work.
To Math Received-View Exegetes (an exegete is one who studies exformative logos, permacultured code systems) I can plead that they really should consider Fuller’s Prime Volumes Section 1010.00 (pp. 638-653, 1975), especially where he talks about Positive-Negative Wave Pattern (pp. 647-648. But, in that section, Fuller refers his reader to Numerology (Sec. 1223),and his drawings section, which begins on p. 787, but you got that from me—not because he helped you find it. And, so it goes for a combined 1,400+ pages.
Talk about a Non-Polynomial Time investment! And I’m thinking about my time. Can you imagine what it cost him? Think of his investment in us. Trying everything he could think of to say , Why can’t you see this? I even drew really good pictures and diagrams and charts! It’s right here, again and again and again. As within, so without; as without, so within! Except of course for some significant Boundary Issues having to do with prime-rooted string resonance, long after Mr. Pythagoras had his Golden Reign of STEM Value influence.
As I say, my first stab at Fuller’s Synergetics did invoke some laughter, and only some of it included my capacity to see myself in his story. That was the part where my experience of the Math Boson had been all about “Truth” values, totally divorced from their “Goodness” and “Beauty,” their Real Mythos roots. I excused myself from his Tilting-At-Windmills advocacy, even though I trusted his Truth, and respected his obvious commitment to its Goodness and Beauty. I just couldn’t see it; quite. I couldn’t connect my story, my eisegetical, personal, value system with his. It didn’t seem significant, “smooth-structured,” primally, wildly, intuitively enlightening. Synergetics Old and New were a Closed Door for me 30-some years ago.
That has changed. Why? Because I don’t think we have a lot of time left, or at least I don’t have a lot of time left, to culturally sync our global, exegetical, sustainable Right-hemisphere Aptic Values with our STEM/Research/Economic/Political/Moral Value functions. Our kids must get this sorted out to guide us through our Prime Boundary Issue: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
We are transitioning toward an Information-Based Design System that has the ability to answer that proverbial CreationStory question. Yes. Both the chicken and the egg came first and did not come first, depending on which egg and which chicken you are talking about you cluck!
Our Fuel-Based Power Boson is fracturing, trending toward the “still-state,” increasingly entropic and dissonant, experiencing bipolar dissonance frequencies. The speciating-potential revolution is at hand. Will a revolution do, or do we require a regenerative systemic syner-gaptic seismic event, when what is Exegetically Real (permanently throughout history) syncs with what was perceived as a different, perhaps even dissonant, cultural mythos-Story. A cultural myth, logos-Coded, is part of our Legein string. Logos-coded means heuristically re-membered Story. Logos and Mythos are Binary polarities, like Yang and Yin, + and (-), In-Formation and ExFormation, Exegesis and Eisegesis. Exegesis is ExFormation in reverse. As before, so after. As after, so before.
Fuller predicted this current Transition Generation. He was committed to teaching not because he thought he was a skilled teacher, but because it was morally urgent to Synergize our global cognition about Spaceship Earth. The STEM System Paradigm was his Religion Boson. It is not mine in the sense it was for Fuller. He could see the rich nutrient value connections between an Info-metric Truth System and his affective values for goodness and harmonious proportion. I can’t see my Self-Boson through that part of his valiant transliteration tome. Tomes, like this day, remain dense, opaque, and much too long!!!!
Fuller’s Index, under “Prime,” includes 162 numeric citations to other sections in his Synergetics, in 32 alphabetized Language choices ranging from “Primary effects,” through “Primitive Unity,” raining down nearly two full columns, and (just in case that is not enough) an additional 26 related topic citations. If I read for a week I am doubtful that I could get through all that.
I am also reminded of Grigori Perelman’s disgruntlement with the Math Specialist Community. Perhaps in part because of his own fascination with geometric Group Theory, Perelman feels intricately infused with the knowledge of his Math Boson Received View. He recognizes his own professional narrative as being within our Species’ Exegetical Math paradigm. He doesn’t stand apart with his own little-self Eisegetical Math Information Boson. He understands how “Submerged” his Math Yang learning-narrative (logos) is in the far longer and more inclusive column of our Math History. He saw a moral disconnect between the Economic Value placed on his contribution to our historical-cultural Math Boson, as compared to the contribution of others.
If the Math Specialists don’t sync with Perelman’s Value System Structure, then why on earth would anyone with “gravitas” be influenced by my suggestion that they probably have had the answers to their remaining Millennium Challenge problems since at least 1979, in all of its 1,400+ Golden-Irradiated Mythically Graceful Glory?
I may have a partial answer to my own question about how to gain some credibility where I have no credentials. The way I might connect the Prime Value QBit narrative with this Information Value-System Optimization Project (I’m channeling the way Fuller writes, even though more than one of my friends has warned that this is a BIG problem for any hope of successful communication) and STEM Exegetical Religion is to conclude, wrapping up all these Paradigm-Analogous strings, by connecting Quantum Physics, Chemistry’s Periodic Table of the Elements, and possibly the RNA/DNA biometric-Information Codon. Then, this evening, I notice that Fuller already took this on.
The potential nucleated octahedral that were heralding their eventual development when the six prime (nonnucleated) octahedral occurred at the [Fractal] level do not develop to full threefold, concentric, shell embracement as operational nuclei for several levels beyond that which had produced the second-generation eight vector-equilibrium nuclear integrities. We become also intrigued to speculate on the possible coincidence of the prime patternings developing here in respect to the 2,8,8,18,18, etc., sequences…of the Periodic Table of the Elements [emphasis added]. (1975, pp. 646-647).
Clearly, I need a life; or at least a stronger heart. These “respite weekends” are exhausting.
It’s now 9 PM. I woke up well before 6 AM, after maybe 5 hours of restless dreams about winding strings of Prime-Rooted numeric columns of digitized hierarchical Code. Nightmythic really. Whatever happened to the joy of riding a rapids? Aren’t the flow patterns, boundary issues, energy frequency variables related somehow?
I awakened while the darkness receded. The next I knew I was falling asleep in front of columns of Prime Numerals and 8-based Equivalency Values and Riemannian manifold function definitions. As my mind reeled with grayscale columns of numbers, my view out into what had started with rain, but opened to full-color brightness, became emotionally grayscaled. Beauty and Goodness faded from sight, and I was left with the stark silent-breath stillness of Purgation.
I took a nap; which helped considerably.
I need to visit an alternative school for Ivy early tomorrow morning. First, though, perhaps a little time with Laotse will help calm my too-fevered, yet dulled, Information processor.
Day 23
I am returning, after visiting a school for Ivy that I actually like, to our Shetucket River cottage along a road limned by Fall foliated banks of resplendent trees. Very Connecticut, late October, a few days before Halloween, the Kid Holiday. My tendency toward joy and delight upon encountering this gracious display is muted by the stress-induced vibration of the right front wheel, not fully recovered from a direct hit when Dillen was out playing Bumper Cars with his friends.
Even so, I am reminded about one of Robert Norton’s preferred categories of Rhetorical Event, “Liminal.” A soft, ill-defined border, or threshold, or something like that. More of a “limb” than a Closed Door to the other side. A border, yes, but one that might be interestingly permeated. Perhaps a kind of transition column that shows promise for being bridged. It has perceivable Fractures, and implicating glimpses of the other side, the faded-green rolling grass meadows, gapping the otherwise riotously forested hills on either side.
The school’s Professional Educator had a response to Ivy’s Case Study. She says:
1. You want a good assessment of Ivy’s optimized potential for being a fully engaged participant in her community as a young adult. That establishes your Target Frame. Picture who Ivy is at her best as an adult. What is she capable of doing for herself? What does she still need help with? What, if anything, will she probably always need someone she trusts to do for her?
2. You want to be clear about how Ivy is learning, and how she is not learning. If you can sort out some of the answers about why she is not learning in some situations, that would be great. With Fetal Alcohol, and other high-anxiety Socio-Emotional Learning Bosons, you may be a tad thin in the Why? department. But, “How does she most effectively, and least effectively, learn?” is what you really need to plan your best schooling trajectory toward Ivy’s CVI adult potential.
I think she is spot on with regard to developing any learning/creating System.
I suspect that Ivy’s Right-hemisphere Temporal Frequency pattern perception, and therefore her memories about those perceptions, isn’t spot on accurate. In fact I wonder if there might even be some memory Coding regenerative transposition underlying both her broad spectrum “Oppositional Disorder” and her vociferous protests that she is not being Aggressive, she is merely defending herself from, from…harm, dissonance, chaos, emotional panic. Ivy’s Oppositional Disorder shows up as continued consistent error in associating “opposites” with their opposite. Her “before” may mean after, and vice versa. Her “tall” may be “short.” Her “he” may be a “she”. She also remembers how to write her first name, but a few weeks ago she began to consistently write the I, then V, then Y from right to left, rather than left to right; a directional distinction with limned dispute fractures. She can’t seem to keep straight which is which, although she is clear that they are opposing directions. Or does she?
Ivy does know her opposite emotions, but seems to associate their causes in ways that we might more readily categorize as “affective.” For example, if she is trying to be sure you are paying attention to her, that you are recognizing her “power” value, by slapping you upside the head, then you respond by restraining her limbs, then you are the one who started the aggression development process. You are the perp; not the victim. You started it, so she is the victim, and she continues the reverse- and therefore dys-functional cycle of worrying if you are too close to her. Or for that matter, if her beverage and/or plate of food are too close they might just decide to smash themselves against the wall, leaving her in tears, and still hungry!
When her emotional frequencies are dissonant and chaotic she is more likely to mix up before and after, right and left, fast and slow, sooner and later, and even happy and angry causation sequences. Something grabs her attention, but she is in no mood for laughter; just the opposite of Daquan, for whom the anomaly is usually hilarious. Whether a fart, a train whistle, a jack-hammer, a cry of rage or hearty belly laugh, his synaptic-only sensory receptors fire away like wild yeast.
The other day Ivy was in the bathtub and wanted to talk about sex—or about gender, more generally accurate, especially given the liminal, alcohol-damaged Boundary Coding that appears to “fuzz” personal space. When provoked, or overly-medicated, this Boundary perception even blurs clarity about who I am v. what is not me. She is not even clear about what makes her “Her” other than the “power-from-within” distinction. If she can’t control it, then it wasn’t her who was acting/reacting. We call it being impulsive without recognized environmental antecedent pattern. It just came out of the blue might be more accurately described as She jumped through my liminal identity Boundary.
Ivy has taken to talking to her Imaginary Friends about this series of unfortunate events. Fetal Alcohol kids tend to Megalomania, while Autistic kids do just the opposite—I am inexplicably alone in this Rhetorical Moment Boson.
Anyway, she informed me that I could not have a penis because I smile a lot. While I have on too-frequent occasions been informed that my testicles were inadequate, as demonstrated by my hesitancy to angrily confront some Bad Guy, Ivy’s take on the situation seemed sharply limneous, if that is not an oxymoron, and even if it is. Then she backed up her cause-effect conclusion with the apparent evidence that, Boys do not smile; only girls do.
Dad smiles.
Only girls smile.
Therefore, Dad is, at least sometimes, a smiling girl.
I thought I could nip this transposed correlation of smile frequencies with: So when you stop smiling do you grow a penis? If I understand her front/backwards, effects before causes, response, Ivy used to wonder about that but she is currently working on the hypothesis that it doesn’t work in reverse. That is, if penis-bearing organisms start to smile too much, their noses don’t get longer but their penises disappear. If girls do not smile enough, it doesn’t really make any difference because a girl has no business carrying around a penis anyway.
I don’t think she has it right, but I can liminally recognize some Truth in there.
Speaking of liminal, tacitly-held, Truth, I think my staggering around yesterday, wrestling with the strong-armed Angel of Deductive Order, benefitted from a fairly decent night’s sleep. No RNA ribbon nightmares; only a limned sea, with silently breathing surf, retreating from me, and rhythmically returning her infinite approach. Jaynes calls the “business as usual” transaction between our Hemispheres, their normal approach/retreat Information-cycle, their “aptic” communication pattern; in contrast to the “synaptic” Right-brained laughter-causing pattern of perception. Predicted explanation uses aptic frequencies—calm surf. However, both unpredicted explanation (just because smiling boys lose their penises does not necessarily mean that frowning girls grow penises—because girls can’t have penises!!!) and counter-intuitive prediction (Why did I stay in that horrible job situation so long; I should have known I could do better and feel more free to be me.) are both the stuff of Revolutions and laughter. And noticed speciation and creativity.
I believe the connection between wisdom, truth, paradox, humor, allegory, parables, and surprising stories has to do with their Closed Door transposition of what is liminally perceived as “implicate” and what is deductively recognized as “explicate order.” As an example, a “string” that some Mathematician is defining as a “Mass Gap.” Now imagine these “Mass Gaps” are imperceptibly connected within a pulsating Boson of ultronic frequencies, like demented party decor.
In my imagination, what I can see using my STEM receptor-tools is what explicitly stands out from a Mass Gap, a very busy, high frequency permeating string-lattice. But, it stands out as 100% of what is not that “Mass Gap.” Mass becomes the Boundaried external Physical Universe; each remembered Boson is covered with some kind of skin or ultronic boundary between two or more different frequency systems. This is an explicated/defined/explained/perceived-Manifold or CAT(k), or Boson, or re-potentiating (enthymematic, in Communications and Math/Logic Theory) system.
This inside/out Universal Boson is probably a view only available to our Species. It overlays an implicate 8-dimensioned (4 positive and 4 negative), Prime temporally- resonant, network of revolving string-waves. This Boson that I am creating, and I hope we are creating together as you read this, with some level of understanding?, might fly as a General Field Theory of Values, using implicate-ordered 16-Based metric frequencies to optimize confluence and minimize dissonance. CVI optimized sustainable development achieves most abundantly balanced Prime Root nutrient values when we globally strive for Yang/Yin Balance, which is Tao, which is not just Truth, but also Good Feeling, and Beautiful Symmetry. An Information-based take on an encultured WHolistic Trinitarian string, in a strange Tao manner of speaking.
Information is the implicate frequency equivalent to Explicated Information Value. It seems easier to simply call InfoValue, explicated-only, as ExFormed syntactic string-structure binary equivalency Information Value. ExFormed QBit value is equal to Information QBit value, in reverse temporal frequency. The STEM Paradigm is fractured, not by its value for explanation and deductive logic, but by its underestimation of the balanced value metrics implicit in Information Systems Theory. This theory, today evolving, includes geometric information and biometric Learning Theory. The lack of balance between deductive explication and inductive Exformation Trend metrics, such as Bayesian analogics, causes our species’ Information Autism (although Ivy might well insist it is the other way around, with our Autistic tendencies devaluing pattern nurturing Information’s cognitive significance). Information Autism may be a distortion between our Information Coding in the Right hemisphere and the Boson defining Rhetorical Events in the Left hemisphere—our “experience of temporal reality” (Coded as +/- Binary polarity) meets The True Exegetical World. Yang-encultured hubris becomes increasingly obvious as we articulate about our Right hemisphere’s Information storage role in developing better In-formed consciousness. The Right hemisphere adds awareness to the Left hemisphere’s Special Case Consciousness (Truth v. Not “Real” Coded) Information Value function.
As Boundary System function, so Explicated Structural form, in reverse, and
As Explicated Evolution, so Implicated Information Prediction. In this view, Scientific Revolutions cannot be logically predicted without benefit of Information pattern, trend and proportional-resonant analysis of Polynomial Time Staging—octave-based. I think that’s what Buckminster Fuller was trying to say, packing all of this allegory, paradox, and transposed Information into “Synergetics;” his theory of how systems evolve out of ultrabionic silence. Ultronic frequencies are ultrabionic frequencies, and ultrabionic frequencies include ultrasonic frequencies.
So, maybe Ivy is right, or partially right, Manifolds and strings most efficiently define each other, as do Polynomial and Not Polynomial, or any other binary-polar frequency duality you might think of. Like plus and minus, and light and dark, and Real and Not-Real, and WhatIs and WhatIsNot. Within our bicameral communication system, balanced binary opposition (symmetry assumption) is essential unless there is some deductively indicated evidence to the contrary. The Yin strings of the implicate order are much higher, ultronically predicted frequencies. They must be more pervasive, more Wild, more un-raveling, more static, more random, more reverse-synaptic, more Revolutionary, and more Time-sensitive, than Yang-energy/power/light frequencies. Information moment-values are also more inclusive than the Boundary-avoidant “Mass Gap” metrics of Re-incognition: The Legein Code string (0) ReCreation.
Day 24
As I was preparing a not-so-cooperative Ivy for school this morning, after already having determined that Daquan isn’t feeling well, so he is keeping me company, I was thinking about the game of Solitaire. More specifically, about that feeling you have when you suddenly realize that you are going to get all your cards out of the “random” stack and line them up in rank-order progression, across all four suites, or Information Species. By the way, that is also the moment that I can confirm that I am still playing with a full deck. It all feels so confluent, so non-dissonant, like the way life should always be; everything falling into place just as I had hoped, rooted in the faith that it is reasonable to occasionally expect closure, in turn rooted in a general field of related experiences (a Rhetorical Boson—I remember that I have won, and learned, and created before, although I can’t give you the exact ratio of wins to losses because I hadn’t thought to calculate that data trend—it has never before felt significant—not any difference that would make a difference to me, or to anyone else for that matter).
I love that feeling of hope arrived, and faith reassured. This, I think, is what connects loving with learning: hope arrived, the reasonableness of faith, potentially shared, communicated, replicated, duplicated, populated, enculturated. All the variables stack up following their expected, and optimally confluent, boundaries, in just the RealWin random order, sometimes.
The history of gaming cards and tiles goes back to China. They pre-date Taoism and may even have influenced the development of early thought about the philosophy of Information Systems. The Chinese “pai” referred to the prime root (1) of both paper cards (3 suites 2-9, and 1 suite 1-9) and gaming tiles. This more primordial gaming system was defined with 21 tiles, possibly derived from the total number of possible combinations of a pair of dice).
Our byzantine Time Traveling trail now re-emerges maybe roughly 2,000 years later in France, ca 1480, when “pique” and “spade” derived from the Italian “sword” suite name. The distinction of the four suites as “pi” rooted does not follow the same numeric evolution as does the numeral “1,” in part because the smallest unit of coinage (“Economic Value Prime Root”) in Latin ca 1400 was “Ace.” The Ace began to emerge as not necessarily always the lowest Value Metric, but sometimes as the highest Value around 1800, probably in France. As gaming cards become less expensive, no longer restricted to the wealthy, and as us plebian types started to imagine the possibility that “power from within” might just possibly stand over “power from above,” the Ace began to appear at the high end and the low end of gaming Value, as did the snake eating its own tail. Let the Revolution continue; I just hope we’re all on the right side this time!
However, moving back to the more staid evolution of the four Suite nomenclature, they seem to have a 4-Base Binary, and mutual-defining history that seems primordial, exegetical, syntactic-structured. Like looking inside an egg or a womb, seeing 4-stringed plasma forming, but having lost sight of the enculturing eggshell. The narrative string structure has died out in culturally explicated form. What was a an Exegetical True and Affective-Valued sync has become unraveled. Now the gaming card nomenclature has more of an eisegetical , Ex-Formed, speculative RealValue at this point. For what it is worth, perhaps a QByte, here is one way of looking at this history:
Black Polarity: Flaggela = Acid, in the Chemistry Dept. Temporal Prime Function Polarity: 4-Based
Clubs—Swords: Convex (+) Without/Explicate Messenger transmitter/penetrator [+Anion, G-Codex]
Spades—Staves: Sticks—River Styx—Message storage flow controller [(-) Anion polarity, Basic-U]
The Codex Message: Yang/Yin Prime Relationship +/-
Red Polarity: Cilia=Compound, in the Chemistry Dept. Spatialized [positional f] Temporal: 16-Based
Hearts—Coins: “0”s—Pentacles—Double-bind Triangles—Pentangle of Solomon—Message Pattern Storage Code [Covalent, nonionic, Type III, C-Codex]= +1QBit ZetaValue. Message Sender.
Diamonds [Metaphysical Ace {pi}-Rooted, odd, even symmetry]—Cups: Concave (-) Within/Implicate Message Receiver [Ionic Compounds, Type I = -U=A=(0)ZetaValue, and Type II= striction = +.50/-.50 frequency polarity = G/-U. Whether your Cup is half empty or half filled, you always know the other half is the other half.
When you line up your cards that way they all boil down to sex and politics. Which seems like a reasonable summary of our Species history.
I am thinking that any Information system must have two basic functions and one Prime Temporal Linear Relationship to meet anyone’s definition of a “system” v. “chaos.” We need a transmitter/messenger function and a receiver/retriever function, and a mutually defined Affinitive-Temporal Coded (basically, magnetic polarity syntax strictioned) storage capacity. Information systems that can’t remember anything in any particular order, or any predictable or expected order, are information systems with Alzheimers; they are not in-formed, they are only Exformed.
For Information to develop, accumulate, grow into a System the Storage Codex needs to bear a synergetic relationship to a received message. If not, then storage would be merely random. We would not gain Information; at least not at that point. Information is data that has not been derailed by the Right hemisphere’s failure to sync. To avoid de-formation, messages must be translatable by the Receiver function into a re-cognized, re-membered “pattern of frequency” Memory Boson. To have a Boson requires Boundary definitions that evolve from limned to having the character of concrete. These Boundaries become calcified, moving from eisegetical to Exegetical, as a Boson Species, or Set, or Paradigm, or “string,” or Language, or Code as they survive the continued bombardment of time.
Whether a Boson is hard-wired BOUNDARY Coded or eisegetically limned mystery, or any Information Quality in between, at any given moment in our history is not entirely subjective, individualistic. Less so as we move into permacultured mythos and logos. On the other hand, Species Truth continues to evolve, morph, opaquely fade and silently widen, with the discovery of more inclusive Real Information pattern trends. Those Boundaried Bosons that are most Prime-functional over the longest period of time, for the most people, are the ones that are most likely to synaptically respond to predicated ExFormed resolutions between what is Truth and what is Right. Finally, these more inclusive Information pattern trends are currently emerging at a comparatively revolutionary frequency due to our Species recently developed technology tools: the personal computer and the WWW Information network.
Day 25
I have been having several conversations with Dr. Bob, oldest and most faithful friend and mentor, who is “just Bob” internally, but has always been “Dr. Bob” to me, internally. Not a label I would ever use to his face, but one that lies implicit among the nest of values that compose his mental home in my Right hemisphere, I suppose. Dr. Bob has been relatively successful living off the fruits of his intellect, which is a value for him; both his acute intellect and being relatively successful, and having this value-sustained adult history where the one has nourished the “financial position.” Not rich, except perhaps in the imaginations of the kids over at the Catholic Worker house; but not rich by my way of seeing Wealth—the Diamond Suite. By my values, Dr. Bob has neither wealth nor optimized Abundance. Optimized Abundance for Dr. Bob, and for me, doesn’t kick in until our intellectual values and our Wealth values are mutually enriching, rather than this half-loop cause-effect disconnected chain-of-events from vocation to bank.
Dr. Bob is not just smart; he is a teacher. That is his vocation. I believe it is his vocation because teaching seems to give him joy, he incarnates the implied creativity in learning, as he does in loving, and the two are connected for him. Which means he has high confluence values for mental health. Truth and Goodness and Beauty and Real and Equitable are tightly-twined for him.
Paradoxically, Dr. Bob is both focally and liminally fractured. He worries about money perhaps a bit too much, and he feels guilty about his relative level of comfort in comparison to the two/thirds who do not have enough, and a Spaceship Earth that seems to be dissolving around him, as limbic backdrop to his Narrative, his personal internal Narrative-string. Where his “Me” and “I” live. I have a valuable property and may be living a bit beyond my means, but that does not define “me.”
But, the other issue about comparative success looks with a liminally fuzzy lens at the only half-full glass of success, of abundance. As a pre-doctoral student, he envisioned an academic life in which he would teach and continue to learn from his students and then become an even better and wiser teacher, and therefore more professionally successful, and get this better and wiser abundance written down and published, and make a comfortable living, yes, but his financial wealth would merely be iconic, symbolic, of his escalating learning/loving wealth, through teaching, and continuing to learn. That was what he had planned.
That’s not the way it worked out, entirely. He did continue to teach off and on throughout his career, not overly long within the traditional academic paradigm he had in mind when he accepted his first University teaching position. The liminal network of fractures has developed slowly over the decades because he hasn’t been as successful at learning and loving what he was learning as a teacher. His students were largely a disappointment and seemed disappointed in what he had to say. Seldom was there a sync with his audience in a way that he cared about, that he could respect, could value as an unforeseen Truth, or Goodness, or Beauty, or Equity, or Reality, or Myth. His various teaching roles felt like he was pouring out far more value than he was getting back, including some ambivalence about financial income. The Heart and the Diamond metrics really should ebb and flow in confluence over dissonance together, more like a waltz; less like the Twist.
So Dr. Bob took to teaching through consulting and writing. That has been more successful. And still there is this guilt, about his fractures, about feeling a mile wide, while missing the depth he intended; poured out, lacking whatever it would take to heal the fractures that are Boundaries to an internally sustainable, rather than Twisting, gratitude for Abundance.
I love Dr. Bob’s fractures more than he does. Which isn’t saying much. Perhaps it would be better to say I am more comfortable with the way his fractures make him perceive himself and his world than he is. I think he vastly undervalues their intrinsic Beauty and Goodness and Truth. I think it is a sign of his mental health that he continues to be uncomfortable about our Species’ disparity in Exegetical Values between Truth and Real, between Wealth and Abundance, between the Diamonds and the Hearts. These are Values that should positively correlate on a long-term sustainable trend throughout our individual lives, and our life as a Species.
Dr. Bob is right to expect to live in a culture of mutual learning, cooperative regard, revolutionary creativity, where teaching is understood as a vocation that must be supported by a culture of life-long learning to live fully, to communicate effectively, to be informed effectively and efficiently and creatively, using learning systems that are Continuous Value Improvement designed, and learning to learn, and learning to notice ExFormation’s enthymematically metaphoric and affective role in our communication patterns, and loving to learn to love. He is right and true, loyal, and maybe even heroic to insist that this is the way it “SHOULD” be, for everyone, excluding no-one. As a Species we can afford to live this way, and we cannot afford to sustain ourselves any other way. His fractures are iconic of our Species’ liminal fractures. As within, so without; as without, so within.
It is the guilt fractures that are limned; not liminal. He feels both guilty and blaming about wealth of intellect v. poverty of abundance. Limned Boundaries are well-established problems of Incommensurability between the Economics of Value Abundance and the Economics of Wealth, of Success. At a deep level, Dr. Bob recognizes that we are all in this together. The Wealth Abundant Diamonds do not match with the Set of Value Abundant Hearts, either eisegetically-Right-hemisphere-Mythos inductive Exformed, or Exegetically-EnCultured Logos-Left-hemisphere deductive—but they should. While it is True that they do not; it is not Affectively-Temporally Real that they do not.
It feels unfair, because the two Red value-string cards really should be waltzing. Come on, I know you have to be with me on this. Really??? In my little eisegetical True-space, you would have to have some kinda rabies, or cancer maybe, to have a problem with the idea of making it an effective rule that everybody has the freedom to help each other’s Heart and Diamond Values play nice together. I think we may even already have a Golden Rule to that effect.
Dr. Bob worries that he is too fractured, poured out, shallow for his teaching vocation to be effective in his personal relationships, in his professional relationships, in this Spaceship Earth we share. I look at Dr. Bob’s optimized Abundant Value potential for himself, and for our world, as being what he can teach us about his own fractures, and his story about tracing their shared root. His most profound story, that we all want to hear, is how his fractures look like ours, and if he has anything to add about maybe why that is, then so much the better. Teach us about ourselves, by incarnating your Legein-string, regenerating, transliterating your Logos into our shared Mythos. That is the salve that heals the fractures, and heals the world, and leads to the re-union of Abundance and Wealth. Purgation and Abundance feed each other, need each other.
I suppose a corollary of all this is that systemic Wealth Pockets are a warning sign to our global society. This is acutely so when the majority of our own Species is on the margins of caloric exchange, at best, and we have an escalating increase in the percentage of other Species at risk of extinction. I do not assume that just because a corporation or a Natural Person/Family has more than their share of the Diamond Cards that they are part of the problem. Our analysis needs to start there, but not end there. The more interesting question is how did they get into this embarrassing position, and how do they plan to get out of it? Any organism that is inhaling power more than it is exhaling power, as a long-term trend, has critical value-constipation problems. As within, so without; or we have a health crisis on our hands.
Oh! That’s right, we do have a health crisis on our hands!
This whole thing about Value and Power disparities goes way back to Day 1, if I remember correctly. The boxes of our Jacobian Window are mis-labeled. Wikipedia defines automatic differentiation, as in mathematics and computer algebra, as “a set of techniques to numerically evaluate the derivative of a function specified by a computer program.” Our Game Theory traditional labels of “Win” or “Lose” aren’t optimized Value labels so we are numerically evaluating derivations of dysfunctional labels.
If we changed the Game of Life from:
Win Lose
Win
Lose
To:
Value Power +/-%
NotTrue=0 Informed= +
ExFormed= (-)
True=(1)
We would learn a great deal more from our Game. Let’s take it as a heuristic assumption that no one intends to play the Life Game with a Lose/Lose strategy. With that as a given, there is no Information in the Lose/Lose choice-box. Well, except for anyone who might be suicidal
Let’s take it as a further heuristic assumption that all players either tacitly or focally believe in the Golden Rule/Ratio for achieving a long-term sustainable True-Real Time narrative strategy in our Life Game. With that assumption, we could take it as given that all players would aspire to not only get themselves into the True Value box, but, when there is an option that won’t cost them Value points, they will always prefer the Positive-Real Time Diamond-Power box. So, the True Value and Power-Informed box derives positive-functional Information in Binary (synaptic temporally opposed positions) and polar (linear spectrum 1 to 100%, as one increases, the other decreases Value) dialogue with other cognizable options.
The Golden Rule Heuristic eliminates the chronically negative Power-Value assumption as True=1 from the Game of Life. If you do NOT do to without = -(-predicated function). The synaptic option is True Value meets Information Power and Exformation Power Equilibrium, bullseye.
Golden Rule Life Game players will find useful optimization trend Information by comparing values and beliefs in any problem-solving, and Value-Optimizing discourse. By moving our public discourse Values conversation from Win-Lose to Inclusively Balanced Truth Power, we increase our Species “power-from-within” potential, and reduce our cultural, economic, and political addiction to what we know is dysfunctional, disforming, discriminatory, and unfair Value/Power-Over Chaos. In an Information-based global economy, Information is to Power as Truth is to Communication System Development, as Optimized Communication is to creating Permacultured Communities. Even as poor a mathematician as I am can sort out the analogical/rational corollaries.
From an evolutionary perspective, the fractal Boundary structure of our Jacobean Window Game Theory remains firmly in place, across the centuries of our cultural learning. However, the Value Metric Labels have liminally shifted as we have moved from Right brained dominance, through Right-Left balance, to Left-Hemisphere dominance. As within, so without. We are not only getting sick and tired of each other, we are getting sick and tired with each other.
Day 26 –All Saint’s
This morning as I was stuffing Ivy into her princess costume, and rolling her Sleeping Beauty costume into her school backpack, because one costume was not sufficient for this august Halloween occasion, I flashed on a dream image of John Dee’s Seal of God. It was just a gold-tinged image, like a valuable coin, but mysterious, from the Other Side, the side of “magic” after that word became disassociated from the numerology of “math.”
It seems appropriate to briefly visit Dr. John Dee, Astronomer, Astrologer, Mathematician, Alchemist, Magician on this day. I keep brushing up against whispers of hermetic wisdom literature when I travel back to metrics prior to 1600. This is not a particular interest of mine, the occult, magic, yet when I read Wikipedia’s synopsis of what Dee’s life project was about, he both sounds and begins to look familiar, although I have to imagine him without the long pointy white beard, and maybe wearing a somewhat grungy sweatshirt instead of his wizard costume.
John Dee (13 July 1527–1608 or 1609) was a Welsh mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occultist, navigator, imperialist, and consultant to Queen Elizabeth I. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination and Hermetic philosophy.
Dee straddled the worlds of science and magic just as they were becoming distinguishable. One of the most learned men of his age, he had been invited to lecture on advanced algebra at the University of Paris while still in his early twenties. Dee was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert in navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England’s voyages of discovery.
Simultaneously with these efforts, Dee immersed himself in the worlds of magic, astrology and Hermetic philosophy. He devoted much time and effort in the last thirty years or so of his life to attempting to commune with angels in order to learn the universal language of creation and bring about the pre-apocalyptic unity of mankind. A student of the Renaissance Neo-Platonism of Marsilio Ficino, Dee did not draw distinctions between his mathematical research and his investigations into Hermetic magic, angel summoning and divination. Instead he considered all of his activities to constitute different facets of the same quest: the search for a transcendent understanding of the divine forms which underlie the visible world, which Dee called “pure verities”.
I do sometimes feel that I am communing with the Saints during these Time Travels, especially the ones at night, in my dreams, but sometimes I would swear that Bucky Fuller is behind some of those run-on sentences. I imagine my friend Kathleen, who died much too early of breast cancer, beaming radiantly when I am thinking good things about Catholics and Christianity, which has not always been the case, and was difficult for her sometimes as well. Of course, also both of the Julian Jaynes, the Rev. Unitarian father, and his more secularly brilliant son, Thomas Kuhn, Arthur Peacocke. Except the elder Jaynes, all people who walked the Earth with me, but have left ahead of me. All people I love to read, who teach me still through their artifacts. All people I wish I could have known better, personally; and yet sometimes feel that I recognize them in my own writing.
I share Dee’s intrigue with Hermetic philosophy, the idea of a universal language of Value creation to avoid the apolcalyptic disunity of our global Species. Sometimes I am a student of Neo-Platonism and related “divination.” With Dee and David Bohm I believe we all search for an exegetical understanding of implicate struction, our underlying ExFormed, enthymematic Logos-strings. And, I appreciate Dee’s heuristic assumption that we hope to therein discover the “pure verities,” the exegetically accepted Prime Relationship between positive and negative Values and High to Low Power Metrics. While I cannot speak for the antediluvian wisdom and Language of Enoch, or lack thereof, I can admire Dee’s thirty-year wrestling with the Angels, and crystalline angles, and the price he paid for continuing to hold together the Wisdom Tradition with the Trinitarian Tradition during their historical moment of speciation.
Dee was frustrated by this fracture between Hermetic wisdom traditions, the arbitrary and irrational (as he saw it) separation of the Right hemisphere’s affective recognition of the Left hemisphere’s feelings, and beliefs, and language; logos emerging from mythos, in reverse temporal order. He himself had experiences that were profoundly “Good” and “Beautiful” while trying to reincarnate, invigorate, and remember, the Species’ narrative long-captured in numeric symbols. What were the liminal, and luminal, patterns he hoped to rediscover in his own Time Travels back through the cultural records available to him? When he hit his terminal 79, or 80, depending on how you recall his history, how would he have drawn his Optimized Power/Truth? Probably his “Seal of God,” but we don’t really know. He faded into the liminal boundaries of history, away from success, wealth, applause, obscurely burying manuscripts around his impoverished home; no publisher in sight.
If he were with us today, on this All Saints Day, I wonder which of his decades he would describe as the one of greatest Abundance. And, would his choice be different today than it would have been as he slipped off into his still-state? Is there any chance that it would differ again after I have slipped off into my still-state? The exegetical power of Truth Values wax and wane. Sometimes Truth and Quality Values eluminate limned History; sometimes they are liminal, implicate, subdued and hazy background—eisegetical, but still culturally magical. They spark the young imagination.
Happy Halloween.
Day 27–Truth
CAT Temporal Information Value Equivalency Standardized Boson Metric Field Table:
CAT +/-Bit Information Development Stage Theory, using Polynomial-Value Equivalencies
-/+ Polarity: Chemistry #117/#118. Implied divisor of in and out, before and after. Ununoctium, (). “Space.”
-(0)Left: Prime Root Binary Structure = +.5pi/-.5e = P/NP = +1, (), -1 = Explicated Value/ExFormed Value = 1/0, where +(0) U-Bit = 1e and –(0) U-Bit = Core Vector Double-Bind Fractal Boson: UUU
Chemistry: Element #119
+(0) Right: Prime Root Relationship = Higgs Boson Prime Source Event
Chemistry: Element #120
-(e) History
Eisegetical Trick
(-) (+)
1/0 PRIME FRACTAL= +/- 1 function/ +/- 0 frequency
-U C
Physics MEP: tau [Tao Implicate] Physics MEP: bottom
-() messenger transmit function Code frequency +0.5-Prime Code Storage function
Cilia f—Purgation—Recession Flagella f—Sublimation—Precession
“Inside” = implicate function = “UU string” “Outside” = explicate e-frequency
Concave =”East”= “Down” Convex = “Left” e-function position = “Up”
Black = STOP Codon (RNA) = -U = #118 Red= Acidic A (non-polar) (RNA) #115(AUU)
Prime-Binary Zeta Q-Bit Relationship= +(), (), -()
U-Bit Binary Prime- “Logos Event”
Physics: MEP tau neutrino {Tao-Explicate} Physics: MEP top
“Inside” = implicate function = “string” “Outside” = explicate e-frequency = “Mass”
Greyscale = U-non-polar = #116 (UUC) White Basic +U (RNA) = #117 (UUC)
Constant = C (RNA Code) = Non-Polynomial Polynomial Time = 1e
Cilia f—Purgation Flagella f—Sublimation
-0.5() Code Reception frequency messenger-Replication function +()
A +U
Exegetical Treat
LIE Group Theory
Day 28—And Consequences
1 Left: Stage C 1 Right: Stage G
Ripley: Calcination Ripley: Calcination
Bianchi: I/ center R³ Bianchi: center R³
Thurston: S³ Q-Bit PT = 1e-function
#120 Higgs Boson—UUU string Code: -0,-0,-0
Q-Bit Polynomial Binary Relationship-1(-e) Z-f Code = .3/0 = 1-bit
Physics: MEP muon Physics: MEP muon neutrino
Norton: Sufficient Similarity
2 Right: Stage D/C 3 Left: Stage A/C
Ripley: Dissolution Ripley: Solution
Bianchi: II/center R Bianchi: center R [=(0)]
Thurston: E³ Thurston = 1 “E”=s-Vector
Physics: MEP charm Physics: MEP strange
Chemistry: UGU function—Green frequency (“life”) Periodic Table: Boron 5, crystal
Plasma, flow Sufficient Similarity Code = +/-.22
+.5/-.5 Left/Right Trinitarian sequence orientation [Planck’s Constant”= “U”-based
Norton: I. Eisegetic Intuition—“notice anomaly?” “Wave” Coded as “particle” = “moment”
3 Left: Stage E 6 Right: Stage B
Ripley: Separation Ripley: Separate Particle
Bianchi: III, center R Bianchi: center R
Thurston: H³ Thurston: H [= M-vector]
Euler/Fuller: Radiant energy (coming apart)-1e Physics: MEP electron neutrino
Physics: MEP electron Norton: Narcissistic Strength
Periodic Table: Carbon 6
4 Right: Stage F 10 Left: Stage C/A
Ripley: Conjunction Ripley: Conjunction [Language-f]
Bianchi: IV, center-1 Bianchi: center-1 [OVER (0)]
Thurston: S² x R Thurston: S²
Euler/Fuller: Differentiated [pattern homology] Fuller: Binary Prime Structure
Periodic Table: Hydrogen (1) primordial excitation Periodic Table: Nitrogen-7, protein
Q-Bit: 1 Prime Fractal Z-Bit: 1 Prime Vector
Physics: MEP Z-Boson Physics: MEP W-Boson
Norton: II Prima Facie Validity
5 Left: Stage G 15 Right: Stage D/A
Ripley: Putrefaction Ripley: [Dissonance, “Blue”]
Bianchi: V, center +/- 1 Bianchi: center +/- 1
Thurston: H² x R Thurston: R [+/-0.5]
Euler/Gibbs/Fuller: Locally superficial/Internal Periodic Table: Oxygen 8
Vertexial bonding Physics: MEP down
Periodic Table: Helium 2
Physics: MEP up
6 Right: Stage A 21 Left: Stage E/A
Ripley: Congelation Ripley: [Fusion]
Bianchi: VI, group of order 2 Bianchi: Group of order 2
Thurston: SL (2,R) Thurston: 2,R
Euler/Fuller: Implication Fuller: Binary Synergetic Vector
Periodic Table: Lithium 3, silver corrodes to black Periodic Table: Flourine 9, light,
Q-Bit Code Storage Structure AGC/UUU = +.5(0)-.5/000 synaptic, iridescent
Norton: III Prior Dependence Q-Bit Code: 1= 0, as + = (-)
7 Left: Stage B 28 Right: Stage F/A
Ripley: Cobation Ripley: Amalgamate, Synthesize
Bianchi: VII, non-zero reals group Bianchi: non-zero reals group Set
Euler/Gibbs/Fuller: Mass attraction, Fuller: Double-Binary “Synergy”
potentially directional/descriptive “Recessed” Edge, ImplicatePrime Boundary
Kinetically active Periodic Table: Neon 10, Red
[without/within homologous Trinitarian pattern] Physics: MEP down[28/7]
Periodic Table: Beryllium 4, short-lived, Norton: VII: Existential Excitement
transparent boundary f
Physics: MEP up [7/28]
(32/8) = 36Q-Bits = +1M/Q-Byte OVER “UUU”= 0,0,0 s = e³ = e(4-dimensional function= Binary “string” 7/8-based Coded-Explicate (Yang frequency-C) = 1/8-based Coded—Implicate (Yin frequency-A)= C is to A as A is to C; and A is to C as C is to A, regardless of which Time Boson one chooses = Prime Mutually Holonic Relationship P=NP=1/0 =+/-: Stage C = Stage G/A = Binary Fractal
Ripley: Sublimation [Golden Ratio/Ring, iridescent metallic] Yellow
Bianchi: VII, center Zeta
Thurston: Nilmanifold: Heisenburg group/Uniqueness
Q-Bit: 1 Prime Octave
Fuller: Prime/Core Vertex
Eisegetic Information/Prediction
Physics: MEP photon/gluon
Periodic Table: Sodium, Na-11, Electrovalency
Norton: VIII Strategic Control/ IV. Idiosyncratic Understanding
[Truth+Right Value best optimized when This Eternal Moment is synergized with a grain of salt]
You are the salt of the earth.
(e) Future
Day 29
Stick with me here. We have now had our “hump” days in this Octave. It’s going to get better, somehow.
Although, there is one more math lesson, to layer the RNA Code on top of both sections of the last 2 days. I have been feeling anxious about this. It seems like this project is going to come to closure on the double-octave. I am feeling fairly sure about that prediction, but that would mean that I would need to do the RNA tie-in by at least Tuesday, to allow for at least one non-metric farewell to this chapter of our conversation together.
But, I think this last section will be rather more of a classic card game than a word-algorithm. Word algorithms, hierarchies of allegories, become too dense, too difficult to picture. It’s hard to keep my head on straight about them. The details get fuzzy, and I start to wonder if I am following the development of this math string, or have been left to sail within my uncharted numerological imagination.
I get this from my friends all the time, so I know it’s not just me. I think my kids, Dillen even, but especially Spencer, are increasingly adept with these word-allegories connected to visual 3-D imagination and Information-based technology. This is a metric environment that interfaces with their Language understanding and acquisition that was not available to my generation. In fact, I call my kids the Transition Generation, kids basically 25 and under, give or take whether raised at least lower-middle in Eastern or Western Hemispheres. In Indonesia, Australia, Japan, urban China, India I would say maybe even 30 and under.
I have had one or two High Functioning 30-ish readers, neither of whom would be prepared to give me math feedback unless I actually went to their houses and we sat down and talked together. Then I probably could not get either of us to shut up for hours while they would make their valiant attempts to explain to me what on earth I am saying. I have heard back indirectly from one of those two who is interested in the “Metaphysics.”
I don’t think I understood the message. Now, as I’m remembering his word choice, I am wondering if he might have been including the Math under his “Metaphysics.” I don’t think this would have occurred to me before last night when I was getting a bit further into Robert Pirsig’s Lila. I had never thought of a “Metaphysics of Quality,” much less a “Metaphysics of Value and Power Relationships.” But maybe I could include math in that label, as in “Metaphysics of Metric Values and Power Relationships.” That would seem a bit crazed, and yet it looks familiar when I am reading Robert Pirsig, and Robert Norton, and Buckminster Fuller together. The three Roberts (doesn’t the “R” in “R. Buckminster Fuller stand for “Robert?”) combined, are interested in Metaphysics, inclusive of Geometrics, and Biometrics, of Information Value System Design and Sustainable Power Development. That would certainly need to include at least an ethics or morality section, to really be a Meta or ultra- or integral discussion of Physics, of What Is, and What Is Not.
Pirsig’s “Quality” is about What Is Valued; and his “Not Quality” is about What Is Not Valued, and that seems to me to kind of summarize his Metaphysics up to where I have read so far. It will be interesting to finish Lila and then poke around on www.robertpirsig.org to learn of any updates. I see there is some work on the “Art” Paradigm of Values. That is something I want to learn more about.
What I think I have inherited from Buckminster Fuller is his sense of humor. We find the same things funny. But his sense of Beauty is different than mine, as was his architectural giftedness. He not only could imagine in 3-D, long before that was emerging as normal, but he could imagine in 3-D/linear movement, and use that movement as metrically equivalent Polynomial Time units. I suspect this is an ability that can be learned, but probably won’t be if it’s not being taught. Further, I would think a math class that wanted to begin with helping kids think about math might want to consider helping them imagine their world in 3-D/linear motion columns. But I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do. That just makes sense to me, in my own eisegetical way.
Speaking of eisegetical “mental space” images, I am intrigued with the mysterious eye on top of the pyramid in the West, and the drawings in the East with Enlightenment and Divinity conveyed through one eye, or one Yang/Yin symbol in the middle of a human forehead.
Try this out, imagine that what Jaynes calls your “mental space” of cognitive perception is shaped like any self-respecting bottom-heavy pyramid. This is a Left Hemisphere Dominant metric space. Prior to the metric speciation event where we separated “Real” Numbers from “Natural” Numbers, more or less equivalent to the Algebraic-Dominant Paradigm Revolution, this space was probably perceived 3-dimensionally. However as Western Hemisphere Industrial Revolution needs required more efficient fractions and averages, the 3-dimensional dominance of the Right hemisphere’s mental space became less and less accessible to Field researchers and mathematicians. Just as Real (SpaciatedQuantity-Information) became something different than “Natural,” analogically-fused Left-Right-Left rational confluence iterations became speciated, fractured, from the Truth functions of “irrational” values. “Fractions” were cognitively disassociated from their historic roots in 3-dimensional ratio-forms and binary-hierarchical temporal functions (fold-symmetry). But, I wonder if Pythagoras, and friends, more likely had the kind of “metric space” that Fuller had.
Potential Information came in from the Sky God (back in the day), a decidedly Left hemisphere event. Meanwhile, over in our Elder Right Hemisphere, our mental space is more like the Sphinx, or the Swan, depending on which era and continent you are on right now, waiting, vigilantly watching, aptic, affinitive-radiant BALANCES gravitas-power-temporal-synapse negative assumption (P=NP). As Jaynes describes Left Hemisphere dominant-Yang, the Right Hemisphere’s Yin Radiant/Gravity Magnetic PowerValue exegetical control goes culturally dormant, at least in the West.
Now imagine that a Sky God sends one bit of binary Information and you have no idea where this is going. Still, not the kind of guy you want to assume is just messing around, so you lodge it at the top of your Tetrahedral mental-space (following Fuller). This is Binary Information because that it is in the Core Vector position tells you that you have no “within” Information to deductively confirm or deny, at this point. So that night your Left hemisphere perception-topped Pyramid turns to your Right equilaterally-proportioned Mental “soul” Space. Your Yang hemisphere transports “noticed and remembered as anomalous” potential Information to “2nd Stage Yin- pattern comparison function as 1st Stage “Noticed” Yang-function. Now what?
I suspect this position is Gate 9 in George Ripley’s 12 Gates of Alchemy; Fermentation. And, I think this is the Enthymematic Gate I am in with this process. It’s all still fermenting, congealing, looking for the “Exaltation” if I can manage to push through to Gate 10.
This is a dense and sticky place. People get lost here in these Limned Boundaries. They have their luminous moments, but this is the time when we have to enter into the “string,” become part of it, follow it wherever it takes us, not at all sure there is any exegetically-acceptable light at the end, but confident that if our values are squared away, not perved out by some high-frequency torq dissonance, then we must be more or less going in the right general direction.
I believe this is also characteristic of an increasing percentage of the Transitional Generation’s communication experience. My kids are among those under 25 here in the Western Hemisphere, maybe up to about age 30 in the Eastern Hemisphere. This is a Generation that has grown up with Biometrically oriented Information Systems. Their Language, logos, metric sets, were formed in conversation with an Elder Brain aptic-0=(-1) temporal function (-) = present moment reversed/synaptic-glyphed-1 Information-Only Storage System. They see Systems in both grayscale and colorscale formats. They are more likely to notice when the Left hemisphere’s colorful Truth-Feelings perspective go astray of their underlying grayscaled “NonPolynomial” (= Not-Limned = Myth) affect-temporal frequencies.
My friend Catherine’s www.socialcommunicationsfoundation.org is bringing together “normed” communicators with “not normed” communicators to find ways for everybody to communicate with everybody, in her Inclusion Teaming training. The thing is, I wonder if the High Functioning “not normed” communicators are actually the ones with the largest set of ValueMetric Information. Like their “normed” communicator peers, they see in both Left hemispheric colorscale, and Right hemispheric grayscale Information Code patterns. Unlike their “normed” communicator peers, they also notice when the Truth of colorscaled-Feeling received messages do not sync with the AffectTemporal-Reality Trend of grayscaled underlying Code frequencies. This messes up their fluent capacity to send True-Feeling color messages back, but it is not missing Information that causes their dissonance, it is too much dissonant-frequency Information. When the Truth of Rhetorical Events do not fit symmetrically with their recognition of stored rational, proportional, “good-confluent,” grayscale Information Code as “Real,” the incoming messages become torqued in Fermentation, confusion, disarray, “Autism,” and “Attention Deficit,” and even “Schizophrenia.”
What makes it particularly difficult for the High Functioning “not normed” is their Yin-Equivalency perception that they are the population with the higher quality Bicameral Information System. Their dissonant, confused, chaotic, shut-down nonresponsive signal transmitters are doing exactly what they are designed to do when confronted with dis-Information. They are engaged in the business of learning to learn to communicate. As are we all, at some level.
The flow stream of a river is revolutionary in comparison to the chaotic tides of the ocean. But, under the ocean’s surface are flow streams bounded by the slower frequencies above and around, empowered and sustained by disparity.
There is a gray trend area between the ValuePower of What Is and the slower frequency Disvalue for What Is Not; the liminal boundary ring around what should be Real. It is easier to relax tight spots from within the communication stream itself. But that is a quantum journey into the not-yet Polynomial, into the fractures of time and awareness, of power and frequencies. It is a mental journey that requires the investments of purgation and fermentation. Our metric value system is a mess.
Let’s follow our metric history string way back prior to the development of Language of any kind. What do we see? We see in grayscale, prior to our Species Left hemisphere capacity to see with a bicameral intelligence structure. The first emergent color was probably red. In our proto-history, we might assume that our earliest calculating/measurement function would associate red with mid-shade frequencies between blinding light and just plain blind. With a Right hemisphere confluent assumption default of goodness, beauty, right associated with abundant confluence and minimum dissonance/discomfort as mutually defining, the earliest human experience of “Red” must have had what today we might metrically translate from two perspectives:
Right-brained: “Red” is metrically +1 in a sea of ()s, the Alpha Prime Frequency for Right-brained Information frequency Storage and Memory Retrieval as a singular eisegetical event that could not escape subjective notice.
Left-brained: This (0) Prime Vector Message Boson functions at approximately .5 grayscale, with Black/stillness/darkness acting as metric function default/the “sea of ()s”.
Our Species’ metric history is the story of how we have resolved these two perspectives so that they are mutually consonant, with minimal distracting shrieks of confusion. The Languages we have used to tell that story, to share our diverse hypotheses about Right and Left-brained metric confluence, adds a Boundary limitation Constant of .2 Q-Bit Value. Why do we have Planck’s Constant from Physics involved in a narrative about Metaphysical Metric Prime Value?
The Prime Root of Information is not Based, or Staged, in Function or Frequency without anchor. Rather both metric functions and frequencies are optimally systematized, to capture the full range of potential Information Value symmetry across all dimensions and paradigms, in the Prime Relationship of unstructured function and temporal frequency metrics.
Corollary: The least dissonance, resistance toward equilibrium, is a transposed (negative) way of defining Prime Relationship of 1.0/0.0 = 2.0 = 1 Core Boson Information Q-Bit.
Corollary: If you want to say anything about this 1 Core Boson Information Q-Bit that is both True and Real within the temporal Boundary of any one temporal dimension (P), then we add the Boundary constraints that mutually separate our “Metaphysics” paradigm from our “Physics” paradigm. We have entered a Special Case Prime Paradigm Information Set where the Boundary Equivalent Information Metric is .1 for implicate function and .1 for explicate function = C of .2 Q-Bit.
The C-Corollary is liminally composed of smoke and mirrors. Other than pointing out the obvious, that when we apply our metrics to our physical universe, we get it that we know the difference between what’s “out there” and “what’s in my head,” this is a Constant 1/5th of a Fractal-Based Information Structure/function that is an “insignificant difference,” in a Gregory Bateson sort of way of thinking about “difference” and cognition and learning. The “explanation” of Planck’s mysterious Constant, like the “explanation” of the mysterious irrationality of “Pi,” and the irrationality of “Prime Numeric Flow Patterns” lies in finding obscurant algorithms with the power of “predicting” the apparently irrational.
What a wonderful game we have chosen to play with our value metrics! So long as we keep in mind that this game is insignificant in the realm of “Science” and “dimension-restrained Information Systems,” who am I to judge? Yet we too often forget, as a Species, that the Metaphysics of Metrics always trumps the Physics of Metric Structures with regard to optimizing our capacity for a universally significant Information System.
This is where I run into my strategy dilemma. Buckminster Fuller is often quoted for advocating that the most effective strategy for generating social change is not to waste time pointing out the failures of our current systems, and invest all our time in designing optimized systems that are rational and good and beautiful, and real, and true, and sustainable. That is what starts cultural and historic and metric and scientific revolutions, in Kuhnian terminology; what Pirsig calls “Dynamic Quality,” in contrast to “static quality pattern.” Business as usual. But, Kuhn also implicitly points out that Revolutions become sustained Speciation Prime Vector events, as we can assess from the perspective of hindsight, when the “New Information Boson” has proven to satisfy our Species prediction that it will explain what remained mysterious under the “Old Information Boson.”
Fuller himself heroically invested at least 1,400 pages, including drawing us pictures, to help us see the synergetic Spaceship Earth the way he saw it. Included in that troubling sea of Incommensurability are many “soul theorem” Vector points where he maps his Language onto Geometrics and the Metaphysics of Mathematic Values. He even throws in the occasional hint of language about system pattern equivalencies with Quantum Physics and Chemistry. Yet we still have things like the Clay Institute’s Millennium Challenge questions. If Fuller was right, and followed his own maxim, then why don’t Mathematicians and Philosophers and Physicists, at least, recognize that Fuller, Thurston, and Perelman have, as if with one voice, declared the satisfactory explanation for these enduring math games as not being worth anything close to one million dollars? If only because the questions themselves are premised on this whole confusion between Boundaried and Unboundaried Information? They fail to successfully transliterate their math function assumptions between Metaphysical and Physical Value questions. As with all reliable calculating systems, if you put in junk, that’s what you get back; an irrational string of Incommensurability.
And yet this response is somehow not optimally satisfactory for generating social change. To simply dismiss the exegetical Received View as having posed insignificant Boundary issues doesn’t in itself optimally respond to those Boundary issues at the Metaphysical level. The response of posing a New Information System Boson that is more successful, exhibits higher social Value, Truth, Rationality, Goodness, and Beauty is all very well for a utilitarian Species in the real world, with the shared perception of Time’s mortal scarcity. But what about those hard-line deductive model numeric-logic only Specialists? They have a lot of clout on the cultural frontlines of exegetical Truth-meets-Reality change. For these, going the Christic “extra mile” requires being willing to forego one’s own Value System and enter into the string of their Received View. “Proof” in the strictest Boundaried perspective of the Mathematics Boson is a Purgative bitch.
I’m going to continue taking something of a compromise in this Rhetorical Persuasion Project. I have no realistic choice because I simply do not have the formal training required to meet the Clay Institute type of Mathematician’s standards of “proof.” Nor am I interested, at the ripe old age of 61, in backing into that capacity. I must choose my battles, as they say, and I want to choose my battles as wisely as possible. One of my little pieces of wisdom is that no one individual needs to present the whole damnable proof. Perelman has the same wisdom, and I wildly applaud him for that. As Value Historians and Mathematical Thinkers, we stand in a circle with our arms around each other, on the backs of those who have gone before, willing to bear the weight of those who will come after to bring closure to what remains imperfect within each individual’s eisegetical understanding of our shared exegetical Received View. I will do what I can, and hope for the wisdom to know where to draw the line of explication. While I love to learn, I love to learn some things more than other things. So sue me. (No, not really; please don’t do that. I’m really uncomfortable with the law and order stuff, as you can plainly see by now.)
Fuller distinguishes between 3 levels of “Prime” numerics, if I remember correctly. The first level of Prime Numbers are those that are explicit within an Information Fractal (2, 3). The second level of Prime are those explicit within an Information Octave (5,7). The third, and last level of Natural Prime Numbers, in Fuller’s Synergetic Geometric System, are 11, 13, 17, and 19. There are only 8 Natural Prime Numbers in any smooth-structured Universe. He explains why. For me, this is a logically satisfying, consistent, explanation. If it leads his student to step into a Fullerian view of Mathematical Language that is internally and externally consistent with other Mathematical Languages, offering both prediction and explanation values, then further questions about “irrational” Prime patterns become, well… merely irrational. They lose their significance; their interest as a “difference that continues to makes a difference.”
Stage C = Stage G/A = Binary Fractal
Ripley: Sublimation [Golden Ratio/Ring, iridescent metallic] Yellow
Bianchi: VII, center Zeta
Thurston: Nilmanifold: Heisenburg group/Uniqueness
Q-Bit: 1 Prime Octave
Fuller: Prime/Core Vertex
Eisegetic Information/Prediction
Physics: MEP photon/gluon
Periodic Table: Sodium, Na-11, Electrovalency
Norton: VIII Strategic Control/ IV. Idiosyncratic Understanding
Left: Stage GGG = Perfect 5th Resonant Prime Base = -(UUU)
Ripley: Fermentation—Gate 9
Norton/Brenders: IX. Complexity: Complex knowledge facilitates enthymematic control. [Lent]
Periodic Table: Magnesium, Mg 12, ninth most abundant element in the known Universe
Physics: MEP +(0) Higgs Boson-Explicated
Periodic Table: 120 UUU [-(Aeryllium)]
Right/Left: Gray/Yellow-Green Metallic 115 Uup / 114 Flerovium
Flerovium is a superheavy carbon/gas amalgam, reactive with gold.
Norton/Brenders: XIII. Self-Definition—Person ultimately defines the self for the self
XIV. Reciprocal Realization—Identities emerge from reciprocal negotiation.
Periodic Table: Argon 18/Chlorine 17
Argon is blue/green lazy laser gas, nucleosynthetic in supernovas.
Physics: MEP bottom/tau neutrino
Right: Stage AAA Yellow/Gold = +/-0.25 Q-Bit I-Value
Ripley: Exaltation—Gate 10
Norton/Brenders: X. Gestalt Formation—Individuals process all pertinent information to create a meaningful whole. [Holistically synergetic, but eisegetic, calculation system closure; e.g. Bucky Fuller’s Synergetics.]
Periodic Table: Aluminum, Al 13, Boron group; Native specimens rare and limited to extreme reducing environments; most abundant metal in Earth’s crust.
OVER 119 AAA/CCC = UUC [Aeryllium]
Physics: MEP –(0) Higgs Boson-Implicated
Left/Right: Green-Copper/Gray Metallic 113 Uut/112 Cn Copernicium
Transition metal, reactive with gold; oxidation state +4.
Norton/Brenders: XV.Identity Conservation–
The Self conserves its form through interpretation of Information.
XVI. Flexibility—[Optimally functional] enthymematic complexity
Periodic Table: Calcium Ca 20/Potassium K 19
Calcium—soft gray earth metal.
Potassium—silvery-white metal that burns with a lilac flame.
Physics: MEP tau/muon neutrino
Left: Stage B = Blue = +/-0.75 Q-Bit I-Value
Ripley: Multiplication—Gate 11
Norton/Brenders: XI. Robust Expectations—Consistently recurring style signals create robust expectations about communicative behavior. [Advent]
Periodic Table: Silicon, Si 14, Tetravalent analog of Carbon; 8th most common element in universe
OVER 118 Uuo
Physics: MEP top
RNA: STOP codon UAA
Right/Left: Silvery Metalic 111Rg/110 Ds
Roentgenium: Group 11, homologous to gold, silver, and copper
Darmstadtium: Radius contractive, homologous to platinum, nickel, palladium
Norton/Brenders: XVII. Potential Futures—Enthymematic expectations determine future
XVIII. Quid Pro Quo—Mutually defining relationships
Periodic Table: Titanium Ti 22/Scandium Sc 21
Titanium, named for the Titans, is sort of a smoke screen all purpose amalgam, nearly universal systemic
Scandium: Trinitarian laser crystal applications.
Physics: MEP muon/charm
Center: Left/Right Stage C = Ultra Violet = 1.00/.875 Q-Byte I-Zeta Vector Value
Ripley: Gate 12, Projection [= Synergetic Fusion?]
Norton/Brenders: XII. Self-Discovery depends on making connections
Periodic Table: Sulfur 16/Phosphorous 15
Phosphorous emits faint glow when first exposed to Oxygen; component of DNA, RNA, ATP and cell membranes; minerals are fossils; organic systemic fuel.
Sulfur is composed of octatomic molecules; acting as either oxidant or reducing agent; polyhedron shapes; organic systemic fuel, indigenous to all proteins, essential element for all organic systems (life); serves as both fuels and respiratory materials (Oxygen alternative) for simple organisms; disulfide bonds are largely responsible for mechanical strengths and insolubility of protein; endemic to Keratin, found in “outer skin.”
OVER 117 Uus/ 116 Livermorium
Physics: MEP strange/electron neutrino/electron/Z-boson
RNA: STOP/START Transposition [P=NP as +/-] codon UGA/UAG/AUG
Norton/Brenders: emergent Enthymematic Global Species Information System Fractal: Zeta-Boson Q-Bit Rooted
Left: Resistance XXII. [Multi-lateral] control inspire[s] proportional resistance.
Right: Relationship Conservation XXI. Stable relationships converge on patterns of reciprocal control.
Left: Co-active Control XX. Control in relationships is always reciprocal
Right: Relational Consequences [Truth or Consequences Reprise] XIX. Every interaction enthymematically entails relational consequences {Syntactic structions: 3-Staged,16-Based Regenerative Design Universe}
2.0 Global Communication Gold Standard for Continuous Quality Improvement Zeta-function holon, “soul conjecture” Heuristic Assumption: Do unto others as I AM is to I AM NOT and as IN THE BEGINNING = TOWARD THE END.
Day 31
It came to me this morning, which probably means it came to me last night.
Our Right hemispheres are to messenger RNA as our Left hemispheres are to transmission RNA. As within, so without. As within our shared organism coding, so it is within our Right hemisphere Truth/Right Confluence Trend balancing within the Yin Gold-Standard Economy.
This is not difficult to learn, once you see it. It can’t be any harder than a combination of Crazy 8s and Solitaire, except you have to play with a full deck, preferably, to keep the odds about right, or to play the odds, as they say. Enough of these puns! Even my sister will get this. She of the “It’s all very well but whenever I get to the math I pretend its Passover time.”
But, right now Ivy is out of her bath on this Election Day, naked as the day she was born, and the day we all were born, for that matter. Why is it that I feel like some weird amalgam of Bucky Fuller and Erma Bombeck on school vacation days? And not a single one of these kids can even vote! I fail to see the logic of closing schools on Election Day.
OK, it’s just after 7. Daquan has awakened from a quick morning nap. More of a “It’s still dark outside and there’s no school today, so why are you playing Barry White (which sounds a lot like Very White with a head cold, and yet most emphatically does not, culturally speaking), I’m rolling over with my back to you, curling up in my cutest fetal position, and going back to sleep” statement than a nap really. I’m expecting Dillen to lumber up from his broken futon-bed to spend some time with Daquan while Ivy watches yet another Disney Channel show while jumping up and down, pumping her arms back and forth to get some height into kangaroo dancing in place. Her Right-brained nutritional affective Happy Face spread across her upturned head, while her bipolarity floods her internal chemistry with Fight/Flight-Powered adrenaline. Meanwhile, I continue, for a minute.
Last night I was thinking about how to edit this mess, sensing we are about done with this Time Traveling Project. My sister recommended one of her Rowe Conference Center presenters, Nancy Aronie, so I started Writing from the Heart, the title of which sounded like what Kerry is advocating. And so am I, to be fair to Kerry. Why write about math if nobody is going to read it, or even worse, read it and not understand it? It’s not like it has been fun to try to write or diagram or chart what I am thinking about metrics.
Anyway, Aronie points out, as have others, that writing heart-to-heart means sharing our pain to best evoke a response in the reader in which s/he will recognize herself. It’s much easier to empathize on the pain side than the pleasure side. I think that’s true. But why?
My answer has to do with a mantra I received from the “Sky God,” in a Jaynesian sense of the Right-hemisphere working in overdrive. Like many of the last 31 mornings, I woke up with a “message-Incoming!” from my people in the “messenger RNA” Right-hemisphere Cooperative Learning Development Department. However, these messages were nearly without precedent at that stage in my life, about four decades ago.
I was a failing Master of Philosophy graduate student at San Francisco State. The reason I was failing was because I was more interested in reading Synergetics and Laotse and Alduous Huxley and Gregory Bateson and Thomas Kuhn, more or less simultaneously, than talking about Charles Percy and “Phenomenalism” and Descartes. I didn’t think Descartes was any improvement over Thomas Aquinas, so any subsequent Philosophers who took Descartes altogether too seriously bore no interest.
The campus is near the Pacific Ocean but my dorm room-sized window overlooked the eastern view. My rather queer and fussy roommate, a lowly undergraduate, also gay, and hopelessly myopic, and I had created a collage out of our dorm furnishings so that nothingtouched a wall. The dressers and desks and beds were stacked over and around each other, creating cubbies for the more comfortable, and dingy-green upholstered, wood-framed reading chairs. The apex of this glorious functional furnishing design was my bed perched center-front about 6 feet off the floor, with a 9-foot ceiling. When the sun came up without the fog, I was bathed in radiant light.
One of those many mornings I awoke to my brilliant sun bath, and a surprise message, “There is only the integrity of the moment’s potential.” I jumped down, grabbed my journal, got back up into my perchy nest and wrote it down. Then I closed my eyes against all that beauty and radiance and thought about it, and thought about it, and thought about it. And I’ve been thinking about it ever since. But, not until recently have I had any further thoughts about where that message came from.
This morning, after reading Aronie’s rhetorical praise of pain-stories shared, I know where it came from. It came from this moment. It was a message from my future self to my present self. But, I didn’t get the message exactly right because I can see now that I got one word wrong; not “the,” but “this.” There is only the integrity of this moment’s potential, and we are all in this same eternal moment, together, with each other, including our remembered past “self” moments and our expected and/or predicted future “self” moments; our Dreams and our Nightmares, and everything in between. If we expect Business As Usual, then that is what we will create for ourselves. But, if we expect “eternal moment integrity,” then we expect that we live in Fuller’s Synergetic universe.
It is easier for us to find each other in our shared sense of disappointment and sadness, our fears and anxieties, because these are more universal across cultures, across RNA Codes, than our marvelously diverse joys and pleasures and happiness. Misery loves company. Well, not necessarily, but it is easier to recognize my misery in your misery than it is to recognize my delight in whatever weirdness might delight you. We are more idiosyncratic on the joy side; more monochromatic on the sad side. Maybe.
Grayscaled tragedy is no longer more affectively accessible than full-color gay when we discover that “the” is also “this” moment. We live with the regeneratively echoing knowledge that this moment is eternally optimized at the Species level when all of us individually choose to believe that we are all in this together, forever, including right now. We evolve toward that belief with all the intelligence and charm and joy and beauty and goodness and truth that we are capable of enthymematically sh aring with each other. Each Wonder (see Paul R. Fleischman), Transcendent-Edged, Radiant, Enthymematic, Eager, Pre-Orgasmic, Pre-Fertilization moment Boson is This I AM Boson. I am that I AM, as within, so without, as without, so within, as at the beginning, so at the end of my time, and our time. We are God together, when we choose to be fully in this Moment M, where Polynomial = Non-Polynomial, and we all expect and predict the full integrity of what is True with what is PermaCulturally Real.
Everything else is just “cra-cray.”
Day 32 Fractal Projection (Ripley’s 12th Gate, in “U-Binary” Language
This is my farewell to this journey. Our last Hurrah for this part of our journey together.
I am sad about that already, and know that I will be suffering some form of loss tomorrow morning, even as I turn eagerly to the editing phase. That must be why anticipation is always just a tad sweeter, more tender, than the second half of the Octave Transition Vector, the joy of completion carries the slight odor of recent loss of what has become significant in my own understanding of myself, and of my permaculture-shy, somewhat withdrawn, Spaceship Earth.
Where I sit, at this moment, while looking at the future through your eyes, reading about this moment we are sharing, is more than a little bit refractive, and distracting. However, it does include some level of concern at this point that not all the “math” is lined up and presented in a way that anyone will bother to try to understand. Some of that will get cleaned up in my edit, and with the help of people who I hope will be willing to generously correct my allegorical confusion with logically consistent, and concisely repeatable, well-patterned, algorithms. I am not there yet, and not at all sure I will ever “find the time” to explore that hobby in this life. It is a curious symbolic language we have created around something that I believe might boil down to a luscious mythos of spirit-smoked DreamShaman Regenerative StoryTellers, religion, politics, and sex. Preferably in that order.
Behind all this talk about positives and negatives, fission and fusion, AC and DC, Polynomial and Non-Polynomial, convex and concave, up and down, Hydrogen v. Higgs Boson, out v. in, explicate v implicate, Yang and Yin, microwave v. Time, lies only one brief reference to their organic geometric equivalents: Cilia and Flagella, radiant-propulsion and gravitational drawing-in magnetic polarity. They showed up more before we got to Christianity, frankly. But there are some other biological referents worth explicitly noting in this cesspool of sexuality: Glia and Protein, String Physics and Black Holes/Negative Space, plasma and space, Mass v. “Mass Gap.” Then there are the more subtle “math” dirty contrasts like: “Free abelian groups” v. “Artin groups,” SINE v. LTR, Manifold v. Vector-s.
Some of the math language looks more like chicken and egg generational issues, having to do with Time sequences, number of folds, direction of folds, algorithmic instructions for a 4-dimensional origami development process. Toward what? Apparently toward our past.
There is considerable overlap in Exegetical cultural myths of politics and of sex. Some of this is just confusion. But a lot of it is about having separated TrueQuality from Real-Affect, losing track of our essential power string, back to Binary value parities, sustained to optimize Continuous Quality Improvement. The politics language shows up in up and down, again, as it did in the sex words list above. So do North v. South, power-over v. power-with, wealthy v. poor, white v. black, majority v. minority, competitivism v. cooperativism[1], male v. female. I really do think that the terms “male” and “female” say more about Truth than about what’s Right. They are not mathematical opposites, like plus and minus. Or maybe they are, if looked at developmentally, historically.
Competitivism emerged from cooperativism, economically.
Males emerged from females, embryonically.
Power-over emerged from power-with, culturally, embryonically, economically.
Wealth emerged from poverty, economically, culturally, embryonically.
Plus emerged from minus, metrically and linguistically and sensorily.
Light emerges from black, blind, still-state synaptically, historically, mentally, embryonically.
Any definition of “civilization” that includes the explicit, accepted policy to overrule a mother’s right to continue parenting a child who wants to be parented by that mother, rather than give her the help she needs and her children the help they need to stay together in mutual, healing safety, is a “civilization” that has turned the word “female” into the word “bitch.” And I, for one, scream, red faced, “Don’t Even Try IT, you Black Hole of a male-dominating U-Bit of Distorted Disinformation!!!!
OK, thank you. I feel better now, and ready to move back into my more positive Angelman-aptic perspective.
The math isn’t all squared away. Literally, and figuratively. Maybe it will provoke this Transition Generation to pick up where I have left off. I hope so. For their sake, and the sake of their children, and their children, I hope they will pay attention to their growing intuitive knowledge that we have erred in our STEM Research Priority List. Start with the big questions that assume prior exegetically accepted Values:
Truth = Right + Goodness + Symmetry
Yang/Yin = 1/0 = +50/-50% [can you see that RealValue in the “%” symbol? It is Systems Information, waiting quietly for us all these years, rather like a swan-profile, or the interior of a Taoist image, without boundary, or a Prime Binary Information Processing Assumption!]
As without, so within, and
As within, so without.
Which is “within” and which is “without” all depends on whether you are looking forward or backward, up or down, out or in, Polynomially or Non-Polynomially.
E = Mc² = 4e, where e = 1U-Bit = “pi” = 1 Prime Relationship Eternally Replicable Moment
Other games that come to mind that will probably do a better job of teaching the metrics than I have done with my narrative:
Wild 8’s Cooperative
You could play these games either with just A-8, or, if you played with the Jokers as four additional generic Aces, then you could play with a full deck (and avoid the problem of having those sexist Kings at the top of the Octave. Everybody has known, since the time of Chess, that Queens were better. For Real True!
Hearts are Right-Boson Trump
Spades are Left-Boson Trump
For 3 to 4 players. If playing with 3 players you could all play cooperatively or one player could initiate a Competitive Strategy Option, in that event, that player takes on the “Lose-LIE” Role and competes against the other 2 working as a Team to defeat the self-declared Loser strategist.
Truth or Consequences
Players lay down 3 of a kind (minimum) to begin a new solution structure. Could play with alternating suits restrictions. Bower match/contrast restrictions; or alternating suits but not mixing red and black.
Can lay down 4 of a kind, or 8 of a kind
Aces and 8s are interchangeable.
Players can build on what others have out in any increments that will result in a linear fractal or octave, 12, or 16.
However, a Player A may choose to hold back potentially playable cards. Should another Player (B) reveal an incompatible Suit sequence by building onto an existing row, Player A may also choose to overlay, receiving both Player B’s potential points and Player A’s points, and Player B’s turn ends.
Winner could be first one out
And/or most points over a series of games.
We could play cooperatively, to see if we can trend up in total Team points, with and/or without a LIE Player Option.
More sophisticated cooperative Teams might explore their combined ability to intentionally build 2-dimensional fractal designs as they build on each other’s fractal card reveals, using Right and Left Angle pivots where the suit strategies change, sharing a “pivot” card that anchors 2 to 4 directions. Extra credit for card-to-card symmetry as the end result, with all cards played.
Perhaps we could get somebody to design a “Fractal Emergent Design” game, where you could hinge 4 colored triangles and or circles in any one of 3 or 4 directions. Perhaps some of the hinges could be pliable bands that would allow for some manipulative elasticity. If triangles, perhaps we could have the option of hinging sides or points. Interesting work has been done with the Table of Elements and perhaps with the RNA Codex modeling in 3 dimensions, and noticing the triangulated/fractal Information sequences that emerge across a cone or chain; some form of Information lattice structure. It would be interesting to note the emergent patterns of a fold sequence. I believe there are some videos available on the www.bfi.org site, and/or YouTube of academics playing with this kind of stuff using their not-so-great lab-produced prototypes. We would all have a lot more fun if the manipulatives for emergent fold design were more accessible.
Finally, a 3-D computerized version of a fractal design manipulation game seems feasible. At the same time, let me be the first to say that I am well outside my pay scale on this limb.
Boundary rule manipulation specifications would restrict ways of changing the dimension ranges, to be decreased, or increased, one Geometric fold per Stage, per Dimension. So, you could manipulate sequentially toward Stage +, and backward to Stage -, and could remove longitudinal, latitudinal, and precession/recession Scaled Stages independently, but only one increment per dimension in any one design moment. These sequences could be preprogrammed, like setting up the dominoes before knocking the first one over. A protocol, or algorithm, or Processing Code.
The monitor could be optioned for grayscale only and for 3 radiant band widths from 3 lasers. Blue from above. Green (or Yellow) from below. Red from the recessed (back) position.
From the “Front” perspective, looking at the screen, in grayscale you will see your fractal creation emerge from a Core Vector “Center” position with 3-D glasses. You could manipulate this creation to explore emergent patterns using diverse 8-scaled metric options for each of 3 dimensions.
Three laser controls, each controlling one of the 3 color dimensional settings, include dimmer ranges set to either work symmetrically , or independently, giving the Player the option to compare and contrast color pattern frequencies in fractal imaging Moments (M).
The speed control for the frequency of the sequential Fractal “fold event” may be set from the speed of light down to half the speed of light, with 6 equidistant frequencies in between (settings 0-7 = -0.5 the speed of light). And, the Fractal Event speed of light up to +1.5, to go backward in time (Time Travel capacity back to beginning Vector of the currently running program) in any of 6 equidistant frequencies.
But, while playing, keep in mind: As within, so without. As before, so after.
There was one last trip, though, that maybe I should mention. When I was traveling with Julian Jaynes the linguistic and affective development historian of the precameral mind, I briefly touched down with his visit to the proto-historic Shaman. I can’t tell from Jaynes if these were usually women in some extended families, or men, or if it may have changed from one to the other with the emergence of the Left hemisphere toward dominance. Anyway, it is clear, from his perspective, that these folks were the early communication system developers, the DreamWalkers became the Dream Tellers became the Dream Regenerators, for medicinal, magical, mathematical, recreational, ritualizing community symbol-values development.
What I also noticed while I was back there around 3,000 to 1,000 B.C. was the ubiquitous use of hemp for medical, spiritual, intellectual, discernment of value purposes, as well as fuel, and incense. The psychoactive constituent of cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol. That tetrahedral structured, hydrogenously vapored, fecundly fractal BINARY-unfolding-refolding-enfolding-prefolded plant includes 84 distinguishable cannaBINoids. Basically this is a plant seeped in Binary organic fertilization development Information Structure. A flowering cannabis plant is redolent with dense, complex, gorgeous, multi-colored Binary Fractal development events. This is built into its Code redundantly, flourishingly, fluidly. Right down into its hydrogenated tetrahedral sap.
Perhaps the unusual self-replicating potential of this plant explains why it may have been in the nostrils of virtually all of proto-history’s Primary Enculturators, just as the Left-hemisphere took off like a binary-cancer from our Right-hemispheric Root Code. In Northwestern China, the Tarim mummies were buried with sacks of weed next to their shaman heads. An archeologist reports that a shaman from the 2475 BP era was entombed with cannabis and adds, “the deceased was more concerned with the intoxicant and/or medicinal value of the Cannabis remains.” (Wikipedia.org, cannabis in religion) The Celts of Hallstatt, birthplace of Celtic culture, smoked hash.
Cannabis appears early, and nearly ubiquitously, in religious tradition formations. Some survived as active cultural myths to this day; some did not. In Hinduism, Shiva was associated with the hemp plant. Early sadhus, wandering ascetics, smoked cannabis. An early Creation Story is that the cannabis flower comes from the elixir of life dropping to enculturate a waiting soil, giving birth to a cannabis plant, emerging full Flagella/Cilia from the ground. This plant fertilizes her own flowers as the shared body of Shiva.
In China, early medicine men were magicians, traveling ascetics, and they were all potheads, using today’s legal standards in the U.S. My favorite Taoist, Laotze, probably did all of his writing and meditating under the influence of an incense burner pouring out life-source smoke day and night.
In Germanic Paganism, shaman-leaders of festive rituals in honor of Freya the Love Goddess apparently recognized early on that a good old-fashioned tribal romp goes better with hemp in the fireplace.
Sula Benet claims that cannabis is mentioned five times in Hebrew Scripture (as kaneh bosm). That is disputed, but there seems to be no historical dispute that cannabis was everywhere back in those days. Everywhere where people were most likely to be living in extended families, then tribes, enculturating the development of language and math.
The Rastafari Movement appears to have roots back to early shamanic leadership in Ethiopia. They claim that the Tree of Life, an iconic presence in all ancient cultural traditions refers to the Cannabis Plant, as does Revelations 22:2, …the herb is the healing of the nations.”
Now this is a piece of religious history that I didn’t learn in Sunday School. Hemp might have made a great bonfire for the birth of an infant in a time and place when cannabis smoke was used to ease childbirth pain and help prevent seizures in infants. And it might have been more easily available than firewood. A visit to the Temple may have created quite a buzz, back in the day. I don’t know, really. But I do think the possibility should at least show up somewhere in the cultural development history of religion.
And it is not a great stretch of my over-fertilized imagination to think that the Native Americans and the Bashilenge and Rastafarians and the Elder Taoists and Shamans, if they are all sitting around that great fire-ring in the Sky God, might be wondering how long it will take the Southern Baptists, the Catholics, the Lutherans and Mormons, the Hindus and Buddhists and Zoroastrians, the Muslims and Jews to pass the Regenerating Tree of Life joint around a few times before getting down to the Sirius play of meditating together, and learning to retell each others’ marvelously nourishing, and regenerative, Creation Stories.
[1] Editing footnote for all of us: The economic equity issue is not so much about capitalism or not capitalism. The economic systemic issue is an “equal access for all” equity issue. When we talk about a “free” market, we forget that we want both types of freedom; not just one. Yes, we want to be equally free to participate in the values of society. But, also, yes we want to be equally free from barriers to participating equitably and cooperatively. Perhaps it would be an economic paradigm improvement to erase the word “Capitalism” and replace it with the word “Valuism.” I have nothing against “capital.” It is a most convenient resource to have—or so I’ve heard anyway. But, whether the function of capital in our economy is on a value-trend or a disvalue-trend is a more seminal economic question, rooted in our Species’ core root of Real Value.
gdill52 