Tag Archives: string theory

Man/Sha Legends

Dr. Heron’s Re-Ligioning Response

As Dr. Beaver was so laboriously trying to say, life is a rhetorical field of potential relationship strings, diastatically enfolding, emerging from monocultural boundaries precessively and binomially, as enthymematic self-regenerative communication/information strings, coded and decoded and recoded in our bicameral information processors. There are external and internal rhetorical fields, eisegetical and exegetical. These can lead to endosymbiotic or ectosymbiotic evolution of the species, paradigm, population, or person.

Enthymematic communication outcomes are sustained, healthy relationships, characterized by peace and justice, mindfulness, mutual gratitude and compassion. The Permacultured Golden Rule is amply applied by all parties in these rhetorical re-ligioning string–communities and conversations and cultures. Each life, moment, person, day, unfolds within a rhetorical field of potential relationships. Some seeds sprout roots in confluently permacultured nutrient balanced, and enriched soil, others, well….not so much.

And yet the diastatic Codex within each seed is itself (0) Core vectored and binomially strictioned, 4-Based RNA development responsive, appreciative, endosynergetically poised for enthymematic overtures from confluent nutrition streams, through tender square-rooted tendrils reaching toward optimal positive confluent sources of continuing light. Some root systems must be much more robust, resilient, indigenously, intuitively adept toward permacultured wealth deposits due to barren environmental soil conditions of birth. We call this poverty and its experience as one of living on the margins of survive-to-thrive, or not; marginalization. That’s why all religions advocate that everybody just needs to do the best s/he can and why we expect more of those who have more.  These are reverse views of the same balanced peace and justice standard.

Enthymematically engorged seeds tend to produce more robust and resilient strings of development,

branches on the Eternal Moment’s incarnated Tree of Life;

this moment now,

this life and place here,

that community of relationships over there,

supporting a cultured self-identity,

an individuated info/communication string/branch from permacultured roots,

code,

and nutritious soil,

producing flexible and full-hearted compassion

and mindful string plant-systems

flowering,

flowing,

with new moments,

awareness,

understanding,

comprehension,

nutritious relationships,

development,

learning,

creation of flowered abundance,

ectosymbiotically fertilized by a grateful synergy of need and desire

for flower’s seeds of regeneration,

falling to enrich nutrient soils,

feeding the next generation’s permacultured revolution

within our universally shared

rhetorically eternal

field of synergetic permacultured strings,

plants,

branches,

cross-rooted in value-seeded,

(0)-soul informed

therapeutically enriched soil.

 

Finally got to the dirty part….

 

Standard
Man/Sha Legends

Professors Beaver and Peacock’s Sex Talk

Dr. Beaver: So, I am curious, what do Peacocks, over in the Philosophy Department, do for a good time?

Dr. Peacock: Not in that tone of voice. Too shrill.

Beaver: Sorry, didn’t mean to ask at you.

Peacock: That’s right. Deeper, down in your chest.

Beaver: What, are you an M.D. now?

Alright then, from my heart to your ears, what do you do for fun, if you don’t mind my asking such a bridge-building question.

P: Not at all, but I’m surprised you don’t already prehend that Peacocks lay graceggs, which is how the party gets started. But, the real fun begins as we regeneratively incubate them.

B: Oh yes, I can imagine you can become wickedly emphatic and synaptic with all that grand plotting going on.

In the Communications Department we have string building parties. Well, OK, occasionally producing an orgy of sustainable delight, but I’m not comfortable talking RNA, and all that.

P: Well I wish you were, we use those fertile string-forms in our graceggs for compost. But you guys never invested enough attention in regenerative string and graceggs, as I recall.

To bad, and ironic too, because we couldn’t hatch an egg in Philosophy if you guys hadn’t produced the book on Consonant Balance Principles of Interaction. Dr. Norton’s influence is enormous, for Peacocks, especially with the newer EcoMetaphysician strain.

B: Yes, well, we produce our most resilient strings on the more engineering and design side of Communications. Those Wellbeing Polydoctors are a little off their egg, or so it is eisegetically postulated by the Bridge Builders Guild.

P: Not to protect my own nest, but I think if they would remember that the best strings will someday be fertilizing our most abundantly organic graceggs, AND it is our graceggs that inspire their next generation of string polyculture, then maybe they would finally get it that it takes two to sustainably tango, if I may speak of dance and motion, graceful cooperation of pace and place.

B: I notice that rhetorical move into rhythm. What’s that about? Are you making deeper moves toward me?

P: I most urgently and widely hope so.

Standard
Uncategorized

Positive Confluence Theorem for Optimizing Community Value Discernment

My work for the past couple of decades has veered away from group facilitation and detoured toward corporate grant and contract proposal writing, but I am struck by parallels between optimized proposal communication and community-building for wise discernment. Whether writing to public officials about policies and budgets, or to private sector philanthropists, the most effective way to open the doors of mutual communication are to show your constituency first that you understand, and share, our optimized outcome framework. If I start off advocating for a program, or a process, or a policy, or for money, then I am another “special interest lobbyist.” Not an effective way to start.
My still emerging theory about this dynamic is drawn from Positive Psychology and from Communication Theory.  Perhaps you are familiar with the Cognitive Dissonance Theorem: we tend to cognitively deflect messages that are dissonant to our salient gestalt. We just don’t build an iterative communication string off from messages that do not integrate with our existing gestalt very often. If we do start off dissonant and it works out, it is probably because of the appositional Positive Confluence Theorem [which doesn’t actually exist, except perhaps in Group Theory of Metric Structure–kind of a theoretical math thing] that we tend to consonantly resonate with messages that are intuitively synergetic with our Whole System value-gestalt. In Game Theory, this would be articulating the optimal and most inclusive Win-Win outcome accessible through compassionate, or appreciative, inquiry.
When the proposer of a choice-making process begins with where we most inclusively desire to Win-Win together, at the end of our rhetorical event [again, Communication Theory], then this establishes a broad, intentionally inclusive of both positive and negative deviance, framework. When the facilitator takes the additional step of proposing a rhetorical culture that values deviant inclusiveness and personal integrity, then this Win-Win Boundary Window begins to fill with the flow of a creative deep listening ecology. Individual monocultures in the room, or in the network, trend toward mutually nutrient-refining polycultures. We might think of this as the Permaculture Design’s Theory of Evolution. This requires design technology for iterative feedback loops that are accessible over time as  inclusively malleable communication strings. Positive-trending communication strings build communities of sustainable and inclusive discernment.
The theoretical limitation on Win-Win positive teleological culture-building, in anticipation of actually having the people in the room, or hooked up to each other on-line, is that procedural and normative values for mutual-flexibility [what Eastern cultures refer to as gratitude, and/or “namaste”] optimize when balanced with the value of personal integrity. We do not have an inclusive Win-Win positive framework for imagining long-term sustainable outcomes if we expect anyone to surrender integrity on behalf of flexibility, or flexibility on behalf of others’ integrity.
That last part, explicitly establishing a discernment culture that, in a sense, norms redemptive flexibility on behalf of others’ integrity typically, in Western cultures, falls prey to Cognitive Dissonance. We immediately get it that valuing mutual flexibility should not compromise personal integrity; we are fuzzier, with the possible exception of a feminist perspective, about the problem of valuing mutual integrity that compromises flexibility. If I yield to the Others’ need for personal integrity to the point that my flexibility is broken, then I have caved, lost. Flexibility will not tolerate the absence of mutual integrity, of establishing a relationship where we believe we have given at least as well as we have taken, and vice versa. The solution to both boundary issues may be to build an explicit discernment culture that holds the values of integrity-passion and flexibility-mindfulness in dynamic (diapraxis?) balance. This balance may be charted (I have not actually tried this), borrowing from Dynamic Facilitation, as a central vertical axis on each of four sheets:
Notice Concerns: how we are v. how we are not [shown appositionally on each side of the binary information axis]
Problems of Hope: what we think about v. what we don’t think about
Faithful ReSolutions: what we coincidentally say/create/design v. what we don’t say/create/design
Regenerative Data Harvest: what we have done v. what we have not done
The left side (bicameral-normative) is the Polynomial side; while the right side is the Non-Polynomial, or Reverse-Polynomial side, again, in information systems theory. The left side also emphasizes our collective integrity, while the right side emphasizes our collective flexibility to imagine what we might be together, but is not yet. In Taoism, the left side is the rhetorical event’s Yang trajectory, and the right side is this rhetorical event’s emergent Yin-balancing trajectory.
This emergent Positive Confluence Theorem predicts that when everyone can find themselves and each other within this holistically inclusive Win-Win Frame, we collectively begin noticing that the (0) Axials predict the most inclusively sustainable balance of both integrity and flexibility.

 

Standard