A member of a web community I participate in posted the following:
Belief stems from fear of not knowing. In lack of sufficient knowledge, beliefs are imposed by the Ego in order to escape the insecurity of not knowing. This results in self limiting, as the beliefs prevent other possibilities from being explored by the mind. Beliefs are soothing to the Ego, and creates a dysfunctional mentality. Instead of accepting that you don't know, beliefs are created to fool you into thinking you DO know. Belief and fear walk hand in hand, being interdependent of each other. Destroy one, destroy the other. To achieve perfect enlightenment, eradicate fear through dispelling of beliefs. It takes guts to realize you basically know nothing.
I wanted to cross post my response to From Ashes:
I feel that some of this is true, or perhaps, I believe some of this to be true, but some of this I don’t believe.
I don’t believe, for instance, that all beliefs stem from a fear of not knowing. I think it is possible, and likely, that some beliefs stem from this sort of fear, but I feel that most of our beliefs do not. Indeed, it seems to me that much of our beliefs arise out of what it is we think we know. For instance, the fact that I believe, as likely do many of you, that ‘2 + 2 = 4’ is true has little to do with fear, but much more of our understanding and acceptance of a system of rules, of a way of speaking about things. Further, beliefs that we hold about facts of the matter also seem to have little to do with fear, and more extend from what we feel we know about these same facts of a given matter. That I believe that there is beer in the fridge, for instance, has to do with several interconnected observations, a primary one includes the observation that the last time I got a beer from the fridge there was still more beer in the fridge, coupled with the knowledge that I had placed several beers in the fridge in the first place! It seems to me that much of the beliefs we use to navigate our lives are based on what we have observed: these observations form the knowledge base from which we create many of our beliefs about the world.
Given this partial disagreement, however, I am compelled to agree that all beliefs—whether formulated from that which we feel we know or from that need “…to escape the insecurity of not knowing”—are indeed limiting factors which “…prevent other possibilities from being explored by the mind.” It doesn’t matter how we have come to form our beliefs—through knowledge or through ignorance—all beliefs serve to define what we feel to be reality, and in this determination some set of possibilities are taken to be actualities at the expense of some other (likely larger) set of possibilities which necessarily go unexamined and unexplored, and thus, undifferentiated and unactualized.
Also, it seems to me that, yes, enlightenment (whatever that may actually be) requires a dispelling of fear—I don’t see how we would experience an enlightened state of being that was also a fearful state of being; although, perhaps there is something to be said for experiencing some state of fear in relation to enlightenment (here with respect to the notion of mysterium tremendum et fascinans). Further, I tend to agree that experiencing enlightenment also requires that we abandon beliefs. With regards to the notion of the nominous mentioned in the previous link, I feel that there is an interdependence between experience of the “wholly other” and the experience of enlightenment. Perhaps this interdependence might be regarded as the absorption of ego into the wholly other and the identification of the Other with the Self, which together preclude some sense of enlightenment. It seems to me that in order to accomplish this we must abandon beliefs as whatever the wholly other may be, it is necessarily not what we believe it to be otherwise it wouldn’t be wholly other, i.e., entirely different from what we know and feel. In this sense, I feel it is less that we are required to “destroy” fear and belief, but perhaps more to merely accept them as transitory and imperfect: perhaps as veils which hide and distort an enlightened state of being.
In the end, I agree that it takes a lot of courage to realize that basically we know nothing—or not much of anything, anyway. There seems to be a feedback/forward loop where beliefs about our world come to form what we take as knowledge, and this same knowledge then constitutes grounds for our beliefs about the world: a self-referencing, self-perpetuating network of illusions which allows us to dwell in the castles we’ve built in the air. Indeed, it “takes guts” to jump into the void with hope of hitting some sort of ground.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
(Re)Search
I’ve been thinking about the relation, or possible identity, between paradox, contradiction, and duality. As such, I’ve been doing some research into a few concepts from logic. 1.
I came across this take on the rule that anything follows from a contradiction. While the student’s exposition doesn’t explain it formally like on the wikipedia page, it’s nice to see someone who gets a sense of what follows from this principle: literaly anything is possible. And that’s what has always intrigued me since the first time this rule was shown to me, back in Logic I, some nine years ago. Perhaps others in my class were puzzled and incredulous like the author mentions in her piece, but me, hell, I was smiling because this explains everything.
Well, I bet I didn’t quite think exactly that at the time—I do know that in my head it entirely justified why magick works, and was directly linked to a cornerstone principle of occult thought: nothing is true, everything is possible—it took me a little longer to recognize the importance of this principle.
Another facet of logic I’ve been reacquainting with is proof by reductio ad absurdum. It’s apparent that there is a relationship between the structure of the reductio and the Principle of Explosion mentioned above: they both rely on contradiction, the structure of which can be expressed as A & ~A.
Of course, this brings in my old friend and sparring partner, the law of the excluded middle, which states that for anything, x, x either has the property P or it does not. In predicate logic, this is written Px v ~Px, which in the more basic symbolic logic is P v ~P, and we can simply substitute A for P and get A v ~A.
So we’ve got A & ~A, and A v ~A: like complements of One & Other, like a duality.
But then here’s a bit of self-referencing of sorts because I feel the structure of an understanding of duality goes something like ((A & ~A) & (A v ~A) ) & ((A & ~A) v (A v ~A) ). Or perhaps an even longer sentence, but adding more conjuncts and disjuncts simply seems to expand the point that, somehow, this ties together to create an infinitely rich tapestry.
Anyway, a paradox is basically the same thing as the case when the conjunction of A with its negation is true, so we could say that anything follows from a paradox. On the other hand, a reductio derives a truth so long as it discovers a contradiction in some set of premises: it proves the truth of the negation of some assumption which was used to derive the absurdity. So in both cases, we see how contradiction gives rise to some thing.
I guess where I’m trying to go with this, in part, is the idea that paradox and contradiction have an identical logical structure, and it is from this that everything else is created (derived). If anything follows from paradox, this includes self-consistent systems, i.e., an internally consistent set of sentences—a ‘true’ thing, say—can come from contradiction.
1. For potential readers, the symbols used in this entry are parsed as follows: & is ‘and’, v is ‘or’, and ~ is ‘not’. Hrmm, I ought to make something in the side bar about these things!
I came across this take on the rule that anything follows from a contradiction. While the student’s exposition doesn’t explain it formally like on the wikipedia page, it’s nice to see someone who gets a sense of what follows from this principle: literaly anything is possible. And that’s what has always intrigued me since the first time this rule was shown to me, back in Logic I, some nine years ago. Perhaps others in my class were puzzled and incredulous like the author mentions in her piece, but me, hell, I was smiling because this explains everything.
Well, I bet I didn’t quite think exactly that at the time—I do know that in my head it entirely justified why magick works, and was directly linked to a cornerstone principle of occult thought: nothing is true, everything is possible—it took me a little longer to recognize the importance of this principle.
Another facet of logic I’ve been reacquainting with is proof by reductio ad absurdum. It’s apparent that there is a relationship between the structure of the reductio and the Principle of Explosion mentioned above: they both rely on contradiction, the structure of which can be expressed as A & ~A.
Of course, this brings in my old friend and sparring partner, the law of the excluded middle, which states that for anything, x, x either has the property P or it does not. In predicate logic, this is written Px v ~Px, which in the more basic symbolic logic is P v ~P, and we can simply substitute A for P and get A v ~A.
So we’ve got A & ~A, and A v ~A: like complements of One & Other, like a duality.
But then here’s a bit of self-referencing of sorts because I feel the structure of an understanding of duality goes something like ((A & ~A) & (A v ~A) ) & ((A & ~A) v (A v ~A) ). Or perhaps an even longer sentence, but adding more conjuncts and disjuncts simply seems to expand the point that, somehow, this ties together to create an infinitely rich tapestry.
Anyway, a paradox is basically the same thing as the case when the conjunction of A with its negation is true, so we could say that anything follows from a paradox. On the other hand, a reductio derives a truth so long as it discovers a contradiction in some set of premises: it proves the truth of the negation of some assumption which was used to derive the absurdity. So in both cases, we see how contradiction gives rise to some thing.
I guess where I’m trying to go with this, in part, is the idea that paradox and contradiction have an identical logical structure, and it is from this that everything else is created (derived). If anything follows from paradox, this includes self-consistent systems, i.e., an internally consistent set of sentences—a ‘true’ thing, say—can come from contradiction.
1. For potential readers, the symbols used in this entry are parsed as follows: & is ‘and’, v is ‘or’, and ~ is ‘not’. Hrmm, I ought to make something in the side bar about these things!
Saturday, October 25, 2008
In the Beginning
In the beginning there was paradox: there was nothing and there was everything. In the end there was paradox: there was nothing and there was everything. In other words, the beginning is identical to the end, and in this identity there is nothing and everything.
This is how things got started, and this is why there is something instead of nothing. Our particular universe is a manifestation of some unfathomable number of possible universes. Each possible universe also exists, although we may be forever forbidden access to anything other than our own universe.
Time is a function of any specific universe; this is to say, without a universe there can be no time as time is what is formed when there are relations amongst parts. Space is also a function of relations amongst parts. Ergo, no relations means no spacetime.
Thus, we cannot get back to the singularity of the big bang because this is the initial point before time and space came into existence. Spacetime was created when the singularity became fragmented: its fragments formed the relations that both require and create spacetime.
Every universe begins the same; i.e., every universe starts from the same singularity. This is because the singularity transcends any specific spacetime matrix; thus, while any given universe blossoms forth from the singularity creating its own specific manifestations and its own unique spacetime structure, the singularity remains intact as the central force driving all possible manifestations. It is, in a sense, the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle.
The singularity is the ultimate paradox: it exists, and yet does not exist as existence is a function of some spacetime; it is nothing as something can only exist inside a spacetime matrix, yet it is everything as any instance of things is manifest only because of its fragmentation.
In the beginning there was I am & I am not.
This is how things got started, and this is why there is something instead of nothing. Our particular universe is a manifestation of some unfathomable number of possible universes. Each possible universe also exists, although we may be forever forbidden access to anything other than our own universe.
Time is a function of any specific universe; this is to say, without a universe there can be no time as time is what is formed when there are relations amongst parts. Space is also a function of relations amongst parts. Ergo, no relations means no spacetime.
Thus, we cannot get back to the singularity of the big bang because this is the initial point before time and space came into existence. Spacetime was created when the singularity became fragmented: its fragments formed the relations that both require and create spacetime.
Every universe begins the same; i.e., every universe starts from the same singularity. This is because the singularity transcends any specific spacetime matrix; thus, while any given universe blossoms forth from the singularity creating its own specific manifestations and its own unique spacetime structure, the singularity remains intact as the central force driving all possible manifestations. It is, in a sense, the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle.
The singularity is the ultimate paradox: it exists, and yet does not exist as existence is a function of some spacetime; it is nothing as something can only exist inside a spacetime matrix, yet it is everything as any instance of things is manifest only because of its fragmentation.
In the beginning there was I am & I am not.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Birth/Death Day.
Ah, another B2D arrives marking 35 trips around the sun for this particular human. I’ve been interpreting the event as an occasion of both birth and death for many years now—perhaps as long as I’ve been linking Oct. 2nd to mark a transition from one major arcana to the next, which means I’m leaving the year of the Hanged Man and entering the year of Death. So yeah, maybe the ‘death’ part of this year’s B2D seems extra significant.
I mean, I’m gonna’ live through the year and see the next: what I’m more feeling in the works are major shifts and transformations in my life (which is more often what the Death archetype of the Tarot means). There’s likely a change coming with regard to what I do to earn money—I’m getting pretty tired of my job—and that is at least one transformation on the horizon. Also, I’m going to make the effort and quit smoking! I feel these are two positive major changes in my life, and am looking forward to others—the more for the best, well, the better. Although, I’m pretty sure they won’t all come easy.
So yeah, back to the “B2D,” the ‘birth to death’ journey that began for me thirty-five years ago. The renaming in my interpretation intends to acknowledge the duality of birth & death, or what is sometimes referred to by some as sex & death—a more alchemical, mystical, and/or magic(k)al dyad—a human birth implying sex, after all (although, in these modern times, not necessarily, heh). Also note, perhaps, that a French name for an orgasm is la petite morte, “the little death.”
I mean, it’s pretty clear that birth and death are not possible without One & Other: a thing is birthed, literally or more metaphorically, when it comes into existence, and all things that exist will end at some time. There is no death without birth, and birth guarantees death. These two polarities make space for manifestation, for life.
I mean, I’m gonna’ live through the year and see the next: what I’m more feeling in the works are major shifts and transformations in my life (which is more often what the Death archetype of the Tarot means). There’s likely a change coming with regard to what I do to earn money—I’m getting pretty tired of my job—and that is at least one transformation on the horizon. Also, I’m going to make the effort and quit smoking! I feel these are two positive major changes in my life, and am looking forward to others—the more for the best, well, the better. Although, I’m pretty sure they won’t all come easy.
So yeah, back to the “B2D,” the ‘birth to death’ journey that began for me thirty-five years ago. The renaming in my interpretation intends to acknowledge the duality of birth & death, or what is sometimes referred to by some as sex & death—a more alchemical, mystical, and/or magic(k)al dyad—a human birth implying sex, after all (although, in these modern times, not necessarily, heh). Also note, perhaps, that a French name for an orgasm is la petite morte, “the little death.”
I mean, it’s pretty clear that birth and death are not possible without One & Other: a thing is birthed, literally or more metaphorically, when it comes into existence, and all things that exist will end at some time. There is no death without birth, and birth guarantees death. These two polarities make space for manifestation, for life.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Duality Rough Sketch
I posted this on a different blog, but knew I'd eventually re-post it here.
Any given duality is fourfold:
1. It is two things in mutual exclusion: left or right, night or day, male or female, on or off, for some examples.
2. It is a single thing which forms a space for manifestation between empty polarities: left/right, night/day, male/female, on/off, for some examples.
3. It is three things when counting the polarities plus their (essential) relationship to One and Other: {left, right, and}, {night, day, and}, {male, female, and}, {on, off, and}, for some examples.
4. It is nothing without relation to some other duality.
Dualities are squares and crosses.
And of course these more specific claims need to be fleshed out. The above model of duality is merely the skeleton.
Any given duality is fourfold:
1. It is two things in mutual exclusion: left or right, night or day, male or female, on or off, for some examples.
2. It is a single thing which forms a space for manifestation between empty polarities: left/right, night/day, male/female, on/off, for some examples.
3. It is three things when counting the polarities plus their (essential) relationship to One and Other: {left, right, and}, {night, day, and}, {male, female, and}, {on, off, and}, for some examples.
4. It is nothing without relation to some other duality.
Dualities are squares and crosses.
And of course these more specific claims need to be fleshed out. The above model of duality is merely the skeleton.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Notes
New category of entries called "Notes," intended to capture rough sketches of scattered thoughts for possible later reference. Difference from (Re)Search posts will be the obvious lack of links to outside sources: simply pouring out some contents from my mind.
So I find myself circling around relationships in terms of the number one and the number eleven. 1 & 11. One is, obviously, the thing of itself, and eleven being two thing in themselves standing together in a relationship. Could be a human to a tree, or a fish to the sea, or a collection of bikes to a set of roads. Basically anything collected as 1 unit in relation to another collection becomes 11.
* 11 as the tarot card Justice.
* 1 as the tarot card The Magician.
Thinking within the tarot, I also bring in 2, which is what 1 + 1 come together to form, and get reference to The High Priestess.
Here I arrive at a model of duality: two things together become one thing, this one thing defined by the set of relationships between the two things—the ‘&’ in One and Other. Note that One as singularity, Other as singularity, with reference to the idea that a singularity is empty, yields that the whole of the manifestation is in the ‘&’, and that One all by itself is equal to nothing, or 1 = 0.
So we can bring in The Fool to this little tarot oriented structure, an interpretation of duality.
At the singularity that is formed at the meeting point of the empty polarities, there is a ‘balanced’ or ‘just’ relation: it is when the singularities are non-empty—already being influenced by the tugs of Other polarities—that the ‘just’ relationship between One and Other can become ‘unjust’ or ‘unbalanced’.
* Just & Unjust form a duality, as do Balanced & Unbalanced.
In the Rider-Waite deck of the tarot:
* The High Priestess holds The Law half concealed: 1 / 2; 1 whole, 2 parts; 1 in relation to 2; 2 = 1 + 1; 1 / 1 + 1; 1 and 1 and 1.
* There are the 2 pillars, One white and the Other black.
* A fourfold relationship between the pillars, the Priestess, and the Law.
* Connection between Law and Justice.
Note that ‘numerology’, as displayed throughout this post, seems as a three-fold mental tool, kind of like acrobatics, sleight of hand, and a filing system for the mind. The meaningful relations it creates are both illusory and real (much like any other meaning created by any other means), and, like all interpretation, are ultimately in the ‘I’ of the beholder.
* I as singularity is empty, I as Jungian Self is empty.
* I = 1 = 0.
* I = Interpretation.
* Interpretation dependent upon One and Other.
* O & O = I.
I need to reformulate some of my expressions. It seems better to express Martin’s “M = D + P” as M <=> D & P, and the same would hold for my “E = I + O.” This would make more sense out of Energy = Input + Output, mentioned in a previous post, which I now realize doesn’t quite hold with the notion of the Law of Conservation of Energy, as written about in said post—will have to amend that.
* I & O can also be thought about in terms of One & Other.
* Other is not-self (not One); i.e., O & ~O is equivalent to One & Other.
* O & ~O <=> M, where M = E.
For potential readers:
* <=> is parsed as 'if and only if'.
* ~ is parsed as 'not'.
So I find myself circling around relationships in terms of the number one and the number eleven. 1 & 11. One is, obviously, the thing of itself, and eleven being two thing in themselves standing together in a relationship. Could be a human to a tree, or a fish to the sea, or a collection of bikes to a set of roads. Basically anything collected as 1 unit in relation to another collection becomes 11.
* 11 as the tarot card Justice.
* 1 as the tarot card The Magician.
Thinking within the tarot, I also bring in 2, which is what 1 + 1 come together to form, and get reference to The High Priestess.
Here I arrive at a model of duality: two things together become one thing, this one thing defined by the set of relationships between the two things—the ‘&’ in One and Other. Note that One as singularity, Other as singularity, with reference to the idea that a singularity is empty, yields that the whole of the manifestation is in the ‘&’, and that One all by itself is equal to nothing, or 1 = 0.
So we can bring in The Fool to this little tarot oriented structure, an interpretation of duality.
At the singularity that is formed at the meeting point of the empty polarities, there is a ‘balanced’ or ‘just’ relation: it is when the singularities are non-empty—already being influenced by the tugs of Other polarities—that the ‘just’ relationship between One and Other can become ‘unjust’ or ‘unbalanced’.
* Just & Unjust form a duality, as do Balanced & Unbalanced.
In the Rider-Waite deck of the tarot:
* The High Priestess holds The Law half concealed: 1 / 2; 1 whole, 2 parts; 1 in relation to 2; 2 = 1 + 1; 1 / 1 + 1; 1 and 1 and 1.
* There are the 2 pillars, One white and the Other black.
* A fourfold relationship between the pillars, the Priestess, and the Law.
* Connection between Law and Justice.
Note that ‘numerology’, as displayed throughout this post, seems as a three-fold mental tool, kind of like acrobatics, sleight of hand, and a filing system for the mind. The meaningful relations it creates are both illusory and real (much like any other meaning created by any other means), and, like all interpretation, are ultimately in the ‘I’ of the beholder.
* I as singularity is empty, I as Jungian Self is empty.
* I = 1 = 0.
* I = Interpretation.
* Interpretation dependent upon One and Other.
* O & O = I.
I need to reformulate some of my expressions. It seems better to express Martin’s “M = D + P” as M <=> D & P, and the same would hold for my “E = I + O.” This would make more sense out of Energy = Input + Output, mentioned in a previous post, which I now realize doesn’t quite hold with the notion of the Law of Conservation of Energy, as written about in said post—will have to amend that.
* I & O can also be thought about in terms of One & Other.
* Other is not-self (not One); i.e., O & ~O is equivalent to One & Other.
* O & ~O <=> M, where M = E.
For potential readers:
* <=> is parsed as 'if and only if'.
* ~ is parsed as 'not'.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Time and Energy
I was chatting earlier and got into a discussion about physics, the description of reality, and energy. The person I was chatting with appeared to take the position that physics can account for everything—all phenomena can be described in terms of energy. I mentioned that we’re not even sure what energy is, but he claimed that energy is a signal is information. But, I protested, this is mere tautology: it tells us nothing more about what energy is than the fact that maybe we have more than one word for it.
So I look up energy, and the Wikipedia entry has a great quote of Richard Feynman:
“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.”
So, energy, as understood by physics, is ultimately without any properties other than a corresponding number. However, it also has many different appearances, and it is transition from one form to another that appears as motion or activity, and has more to do with the word’s etymology as “active,” “operation,” and “working.” Thus, there is a seeming paradox when it comes to energy: relative to a defined frame of reference, the activity of energy in a given space over time creates the phenomena that manifests within that space; however, the energy of the system remains identical to itself—it does not change. So what we find about energy appears to be that it changes in space over time, but it doesn’t change at all.
I also chatted with this person about how we don’t really understand what time is. Hir position was that we did, and that it could be understood as steps of progress in mutations, which seems to have intuitive merit; however, this merit, it seems to me, is based upon our perceptions of experiences as embedded within time, and not an understanding of time itself. Given that ‘space-time’ has no properties, but instead defines the dimensions of the system or structure in which energy exists, and that energy is merely some unchanging number, I’m not sure how we come to an understanding of what time is beyond a product of our own perceptions of something that, ultimately, does not change.
In other words, time makes no damn sense at all. And yet, this absurdity seems to be our reality.
So I look up energy, and the Wikipedia entry has a great quote of Richard Feynman:
“There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law; it is exact, so far we know. The law is called conservation of energy; it states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity, which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number, and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.”
So, energy, as understood by physics, is ultimately without any properties other than a corresponding number. However, it also has many different appearances, and it is transition from one form to another that appears as motion or activity, and has more to do with the word’s etymology as “active,” “operation,” and “working.” Thus, there is a seeming paradox when it comes to energy: relative to a defined frame of reference, the activity of energy in a given space over time creates the phenomena that manifests within that space; however, the energy of the system remains identical to itself—it does not change. So what we find about energy appears to be that it changes in space over time, but it doesn’t change at all.
I also chatted with this person about how we don’t really understand what time is. Hir position was that we did, and that it could be understood as steps of progress in mutations, which seems to have intuitive merit; however, this merit, it seems to me, is based upon our perceptions of experiences as embedded within time, and not an understanding of time itself. Given that ‘space-time’ has no properties, but instead defines the dimensions of the system or structure in which energy exists, and that energy is merely some unchanging number, I’m not sure how we come to an understanding of what time is beyond a product of our own perceptions of something that, ultimately, does not change.
In other words, time makes no damn sense at all. And yet, this absurdity seems to be our reality.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Notes on EIO
A few months ago when I started this blog, I picked the picture of the fractal in the sidebar and titled it E = I + O. This represents a formula I was toying with in my mind, a metaphor of manifestation to guide some of my thoughts. I’ve been meaning to write about it, and it is some of what I hinted at in a previous post about going on vacation. This statement, “E = I + O,” kinda’ served as a beacon of sorts of the Re: Awakening.
As a sort of grounding, there is the already written The Fractal Structure of a Dispositional Universe, which explores the relationship between Dr. CB Martin’s dispositional theory and the properties of a fractal structure. The main import for this entry is that Martin formulates that “M = D + P,” where:
M = Manifestation
D = Disposition
P = mutual disposition Partner
I argue in the essay that such a formulation creates a fractal structure to manifestation, i.e., that reality exists in a fractal dimension—not quite here or there (in a way)—if we assume Martin’s dispositional theory as a model of existence.
So in terms of this metaphor, M = D + P is a facet of E = I + O. Now this is where it gets a little less rigourous (if it ever was in the first place), and becomes more loose, and, in a way, more free.
The simplest way for me to present this is as follows:
E = {Energy, Everyone, Everything, Eternal, Experience, Element, Expression, Encounter}
I = {Individual, Interpretation, I, Interdependent, Infinite, Information, Input}
O = {Other, Object, Opening, One, Output}
These are sets of words—each word obviously beginning with the letter name of the set—which I’ve loosely associated with the formula.1. Some particular groupings are more meaningful (seemingly) than others, and serve more to capture some of the intended meaning of the statement.
For example, since energy can neither be created or destroyed, “Energy = Input + Output” makes sense in terms where the energy present in a moment is identical to the energy that created it in the past and the energy that it will become in the future.2. In turn, a collection of energies creates the manifestation of the moment in a similar (metaphorical) way that a collection of points creates a fractal pattern.
Some of the words are meant to have slippery senses which point their reference to one of the other sets. This in order to give a feel for the self-referencing that is existence: a sense of the paradox that gives rise to manifestation.
For example, “I” can point to One, as I am the One that I know, for instance.
Or, O can been seen as 0 (‘zero’), and points to the notion that a singularity is nothing, 1 = 0, or that the self is empty (I = O)
Or, we can pun on I as ‘eye’ and bring in sensory data, or pun on I as ‘aye,’ affirmation, and make nodding reference to Derrida’s “Oui, Oui”.
Yeah, there’s a lot of sloppy metaphor in this E = I + O, and I hope that maybe this entry captures a little bit of what I mean here. However, ultimately, the formula is intended to create enough semantic play that boundaries collapse, and E = I = O, which, in turn, creates a space to catch a glimpse of a unspeakable ontological reality.
1. Please note the sets are not meant to be exhaustive, merely a sample of things that could be assocaited with each letter.
2. ETA on 9/18/08: Since writing this post this substitution has bothered me because in a standard interpretation qua physics E = I + O, where E is energy, I is input (of energy), and O is output (of energy) the formula is pretty much wrong. However, the idea expressed here, that energy remains constant over time, is true in terms of the law of conservation of energy. I suppose if we instead examined Energy, E, = the energy of the individual, I, + the energy of all Other individuals, O, then this would make more sense in terms of the actual physical law.
As a sort of grounding, there is the already written The Fractal Structure of a Dispositional Universe, which explores the relationship between Dr. CB Martin’s dispositional theory and the properties of a fractal structure. The main import for this entry is that Martin formulates that “M = D + P,” where:
M = Manifestation
D = Disposition
P = mutual disposition Partner
I argue in the essay that such a formulation creates a fractal structure to manifestation, i.e., that reality exists in a fractal dimension—not quite here or there (in a way)—if we assume Martin’s dispositional theory as a model of existence.
So in terms of this metaphor, M = D + P is a facet of E = I + O. Now this is where it gets a little less rigourous (if it ever was in the first place), and becomes more loose, and, in a way, more free.
The simplest way for me to present this is as follows:
E = {Energy, Everyone, Everything, Eternal, Experience, Element, Expression, Encounter}
I = {Individual, Interpretation, I, Interdependent, Infinite, Information, Input}
O = {Other, Object, Opening, One, Output}
These are sets of words—each word obviously beginning with the letter name of the set—which I’ve loosely associated with the formula.1. Some particular groupings are more meaningful (seemingly) than others, and serve more to capture some of the intended meaning of the statement.
For example, since energy can neither be created or destroyed, “Energy = Input + Output” makes sense in terms where the energy present in a moment is identical to the energy that created it in the past and the energy that it will become in the future.2. In turn, a collection of energies creates the manifestation of the moment in a similar (metaphorical) way that a collection of points creates a fractal pattern.
Some of the words are meant to have slippery senses which point their reference to one of the other sets. This in order to give a feel for the self-referencing that is existence: a sense of the paradox that gives rise to manifestation.
For example, “I” can point to One, as I am the One that I know, for instance.
Or, O can been seen as 0 (‘zero’), and points to the notion that a singularity is nothing, 1 = 0, or that the self is empty (I = O)
Or, we can pun on I as ‘eye’ and bring in sensory data, or pun on I as ‘aye,’ affirmation, and make nodding reference to Derrida’s “Oui, Oui”.
Yeah, there’s a lot of sloppy metaphor in this E = I + O, and I hope that maybe this entry captures a little bit of what I mean here. However, ultimately, the formula is intended to create enough semantic play that boundaries collapse, and E = I = O, which, in turn, creates a space to catch a glimpse of a unspeakable ontological reality.
1. Please note the sets are not meant to be exhaustive, merely a sample of things that could be assocaited with each letter.
2. ETA on 9/18/08: Since writing this post this substitution has bothered me because in a standard interpretation qua physics E = I + O, where E is energy, I is input (of energy), and O is output (of energy) the formula is pretty much wrong. However, the idea expressed here, that energy remains constant over time, is true in terms of the law of conservation of energy. I suppose if we instead examined Energy, E, = the energy of the individual, I, + the energy of all Other individuals, O, then this would make more sense in terms of the actual physical law.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
(Re)Search
I think I'm gonna' start a new category of posts titled "(Re)Search," which will be mostly a collection of links and maybe some commentary on the content or inspiration for posting said links. These will likely be related--perhaps sometimes very abstractly--to ideas explored in this blog.
Tonight I found myself thinking about figure/ground ordering in perception, as well as its connection to Gestalt psychology.
I also discovered that Gestalt therapy is somewhat different from, and not entirely connected to, Gestalt psychology.
'Gestalt' being defined as: a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
There are dualities involved in the creation of the whole from its parts (aside from "whole & parts," see also : mereology): figure/ground being one aspect, in this case, of perception.
Also noted in some of the above links is the duality of Self and Other. I particularly liked the following from Gestalt therapy:
"...self...is a comparison with 'other'. Without other there is no self, and how I experience other is inseparable from how I experience self,"
which also makes think of Jung. Indeed, part of what led me on this search was the duality that can be perceived between the consciousness and the collective unconsciousness--as a form of the figure/ground relationship--with respect to interpretation of experiences.
As an aside, this applet of a stereoscopic animated hypercube is a fascinating interplay of figure/ground in 3d! But the viewer requires those blue/red 3d glasses for full effect.
Tonight I found myself thinking about figure/ground ordering in perception, as well as its connection to Gestalt psychology.
I also discovered that Gestalt therapy is somewhat different from, and not entirely connected to, Gestalt psychology.
'Gestalt' being defined as: a physical, biological, psychological, or symbolic configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts.
There are dualities involved in the creation of the whole from its parts (aside from "whole & parts," see also : mereology): figure/ground being one aspect, in this case, of perception.
Also noted in some of the above links is the duality of Self and Other. I particularly liked the following from Gestalt therapy:
"...self...is a comparison with 'other'. Without other there is no self, and how I experience other is inseparable from how I experience self,"
which also makes think of Jung. Indeed, part of what led me on this search was the duality that can be perceived between the consciousness and the collective unconsciousness--as a form of the figure/ground relationship--with respect to interpretation of experiences.
As an aside, this applet of a stereoscopic animated hypercube is a fascinating interplay of figure/ground in 3d! But the viewer requires those blue/red 3d glasses for full effect.
Friday, August 22, 2008
A Fragment on Singularity
Here’s a funny thing, I have tried several times to write for this blog, and got bogged down in getting it perfect—like I had to say everything all at once, and in a way that was entirely correct. What ends up happening is I either save, or more often, delete the entry, and don’t really return to it—although I may return to the ideas several times while not writing about them.
This is contrary and counter-productive to an aspect of what I am trying to accomplish here, which is, namely, to start writing philosophy again, to pick up the ideas I was working on in times past.
Now, part of this hesitation to post incomplete or partially formed positions and thoughts is because one day I want to make this blog more public, and I want it to be functionally fabulous in relating the ideas it sets out to explore. So I’ve set myself up with a paradox: write freely about these ideas as if no one else is reading, but restrict the writing to only polished and perfected pieces that will be suitable for public consumption.
Heh, figures I’d create a strange loop for myself over this endeavour: after all, the strange loop is what this is all about!
Lol, in reading over the wikipedia article I find myself laughing at how I could attempt to explain the “…hierarchy of levels…[where e]ach level is linked to at least one other by some type of relationship, [so that the] strange loop hierarchy…is "tangled" …[such]…that there is no well defined highest or lowest level [resulting in a structure where t]he levels are organized such that moving through them eventually returns one to one's starting point” which makes me choose this term to describe my ambitions, but then I’d have to start and finish a blog that was identical to this one: yet another strange loop.
Anyway, I’d like to get on with an aspect of what I spend time thinking about, the singularity.
So let’s take a moment to consider one thing all on its own—let’s call it A. Further, if we think about what we mean by “one thing all on its own,” then we find that what we mean—literally—is a singular thing: a thing with no parts, no properties, but a unit in and of itself.
“A unit of what?” we might ask.
Well, we cannot answer this question because we are considering A as existing in relation to nothing else, and this means there is no possible observation of A because A is the only thing that exists.
“But aren’t we observing it now, as we consider it?” we might ask.
No we are not. What we are observing in our mind’s eye is, perhaps, a picture of some object that looks like the capital letter A surrounded by empty space. In other words, we are observing a representation of the circumstance described, but we are not observing A itself, because as we have said, we are attempting—and failing, apparently—to examine a thing as it exists as a singularity.
Kant also thought along these lines, I mentioned this before—this time I did look it up though—noumena is what he called a singular thing in itself. As Kant also reasoned, a noumena is “specified negatively as unknown and beyond our experience, or positively as knowable in some absolute non-sensible way.” 1.
So the singularity, the noumena, remains unknown to us because it relates to nothing else. If we were to come to know it, then we would have to become it, but if we become it we lose ourselves which would necessarily include all our thoughts, ideas, modes of interpretation—since the noumena is not that—and all we are left with is being without any relations; being without anything at all.
Put differently, if A exists, then it exists as nothing, and the only way to understand “exists as nothing” is with the notion of ‘nonexistence.’ In other words A exists if and only if A does not exist.
1. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pg. 400.
This is contrary and counter-productive to an aspect of what I am trying to accomplish here, which is, namely, to start writing philosophy again, to pick up the ideas I was working on in times past.
Now, part of this hesitation to post incomplete or partially formed positions and thoughts is because one day I want to make this blog more public, and I want it to be functionally fabulous in relating the ideas it sets out to explore. So I’ve set myself up with a paradox: write freely about these ideas as if no one else is reading, but restrict the writing to only polished and perfected pieces that will be suitable for public consumption.
Heh, figures I’d create a strange loop for myself over this endeavour: after all, the strange loop is what this is all about!
Lol, in reading over the wikipedia article I find myself laughing at how I could attempt to explain the “…hierarchy of levels…[where e]ach level is linked to at least one other by some type of relationship, [so that the] strange loop hierarchy…is "tangled" …[such]…that there is no well defined highest or lowest level [resulting in a structure where t]he levels are organized such that moving through them eventually returns one to one's starting point” which makes me choose this term to describe my ambitions, but then I’d have to start and finish a blog that was identical to this one: yet another strange loop.
Anyway, I’d like to get on with an aspect of what I spend time thinking about, the singularity.
So let’s take a moment to consider one thing all on its own—let’s call it A. Further, if we think about what we mean by “one thing all on its own,” then we find that what we mean—literally—is a singular thing: a thing with no parts, no properties, but a unit in and of itself.
“A unit of what?” we might ask.
Well, we cannot answer this question because we are considering A as existing in relation to nothing else, and this means there is no possible observation of A because A is the only thing that exists.
“But aren’t we observing it now, as we consider it?” we might ask.
No we are not. What we are observing in our mind’s eye is, perhaps, a picture of some object that looks like the capital letter A surrounded by empty space. In other words, we are observing a representation of the circumstance described, but we are not observing A itself, because as we have said, we are attempting—and failing, apparently—to examine a thing as it exists as a singularity.
Kant also thought along these lines, I mentioned this before—this time I did look it up though—noumena is what he called a singular thing in itself. As Kant also reasoned, a noumena is “specified negatively as unknown and beyond our experience, or positively as knowable in some absolute non-sensible way.” 1.
So the singularity, the noumena, remains unknown to us because it relates to nothing else. If we were to come to know it, then we would have to become it, but if we become it we lose ourselves which would necessarily include all our thoughts, ideas, modes of interpretation—since the noumena is not that—and all we are left with is being without any relations; being without anything at all.
Put differently, if A exists, then it exists as nothing, and the only way to understand “exists as nothing” is with the notion of ‘nonexistence.’ In other words A exists if and only if A does not exist.
1. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pg. 400.
From Elsewhere Again
A basic problem when trying to come to terms with duality and dichotomy is pointed at in the following statement:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can be divided into two kinds of people and those who can't.
A specific dichotomy can be collapsed, reconciled, or understood as a unity, but only from the perspective of some other duality.
Even talk about "nonduality" is talk about negating something, and negation is merely one side of a duality captured in, for examples, 'yes or no' or 'on or off'. Put differently, "nonduality" can only make sense if there is "duality" for it to be contrasted to, and so, we see two polarities manifest a paradox.
Paradox is the generator of experience.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can be divided into two kinds of people and those who can't.
A specific dichotomy can be collapsed, reconciled, or understood as a unity, but only from the perspective of some other duality.
Even talk about "nonduality" is talk about negating something, and negation is merely one side of a duality captured in, for examples, 'yes or no' or 'on or off'. Put differently, "nonduality" can only make sense if there is "duality" for it to be contrasted to, and so, we see two polarities manifest a paradox.
Paradox is the generator of experience.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Something Elsewhere
I wrote the following for an online community of which I'm a member, but I wanted to post it here too as it has everything to do with what this blog is about. Now, I know it might not make total sense because the context has been removed, but it relates some of the ideas I hold about our reality, the ways in which in interpret it, and how to examine such a mode of interpretation. Without further ado, here is the post:
Hurm...maybe don't give up the goat so quickly? I mean, maybe you didn't get it all right, but sure as shit ya' didn't get it all wrong either, and where some critiques might be valid, I bet dollars to donuts none of the detractors, ultimately, have it all right either.
See here’s some of the thing—and fer sure this is simply from how I got it reckoned, and maybe some of it’s right, but I’d be struck dead by whatever force you (reader) happen to believe in if it should contain no error. So yeah, well there is undeniably a distinction drawn in QBL between RHP and LHP, this is, as has at least been hinted by some of the folks above, not exclusive to QBL by any means, nor is it merely a strictly Western way of creating categories of our experiences.
In fact, I’d hazard that in almost any tradition there is something within the interpretive structure that defines distinction between ‘right’ and ‘left’. ‘Cause really, right and left are a basic tool we use to orient ourselves in the physical world, and this, being based on the interpretation of physical space, is fairly entrenched in the psyche of an experiencing being. Humans, being so damn complicated, are bound to create meaning out of such fundamental distinction, and so, make connections with all sorts of other meaningful structures within both their personal and social “reality tunnel(s).” Again, this is at least a means to orient oneself not only physically, but mentally/spiritually what-have-you—it creates a space within which we can attempt to know ourselves in virtue of our interpretation of the information that occupies this space.
To put it all a little differently, without a sense of left and right, well, we’d be cut off from a whole dimension of experiencing. So yeah, the basic dichotomy of ‘right’ and ‘left’ seem very real, and to some people who believe in some particular interpretive structure, the meaningful associations made with these orientations are also real—they are used to create categories which aid in identification, a means to understand.
But that all said, it’s not only important to recognize and acknowledge the reality of dichotomies, it’s also equally important to understand their deconstruction and unity. Thus, your attempt in the original post to weave a synthesis of polarities, and relate your understanding of the unity and/or “falsehood” of the particular dichotomy you define seems to me a means to deeper understanding and wisdom—it doesn’t matter so much here that perhaps the facts may or may not be right, it’s more the understanding of the need to undertake such a venture.
Hurm...maybe don't give up the goat so quickly? I mean, maybe you didn't get it all right, but sure as shit ya' didn't get it all wrong either, and where some critiques might be valid, I bet dollars to donuts none of the detractors, ultimately, have it all right either.
See here’s some of the thing—and fer sure this is simply from how I got it reckoned, and maybe some of it’s right, but I’d be struck dead by whatever force you (reader) happen to believe in if it should contain no error. So yeah, well there is undeniably a distinction drawn in QBL between RHP and LHP, this is, as has at least been hinted by some of the folks above, not exclusive to QBL by any means, nor is it merely a strictly Western way of creating categories of our experiences.
In fact, I’d hazard that in almost any tradition there is something within the interpretive structure that defines distinction between ‘right’ and ‘left’. ‘Cause really, right and left are a basic tool we use to orient ourselves in the physical world, and this, being based on the interpretation of physical space, is fairly entrenched in the psyche of an experiencing being. Humans, being so damn complicated, are bound to create meaning out of such fundamental distinction, and so, make connections with all sorts of other meaningful structures within both their personal and social “reality tunnel(s).” Again, this is at least a means to orient oneself not only physically, but mentally/spiritually what-have-you—it creates a space within which we can attempt to know ourselves in virtue of our interpretation of the information that occupies this space.
To put it all a little differently, without a sense of left and right, well, we’d be cut off from a whole dimension of experiencing. So yeah, the basic dichotomy of ‘right’ and ‘left’ seem very real, and to some people who believe in some particular interpretive structure, the meaningful associations made with these orientations are also real—they are used to create categories which aid in identification, a means to understand.
But that all said, it’s not only important to recognize and acknowledge the reality of dichotomies, it’s also equally important to understand their deconstruction and unity. Thus, your attempt in the original post to weave a synthesis of polarities, and relate your understanding of the unity and/or “falsehood” of the particular dichotomy you define seems to me a means to deeper understanding and wisdom—it doesn’t matter so much here that perhaps the facts may or may not be right, it’s more the understanding of the need to undertake such a venture.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Something To Believe In
I want to write something that makes me believe that I believe in something. I want to write something that examines the belief that I believe in something. I want to write something that makes me believe there’s something to believe in. I want to write something that I believe.
That was a bit of a riff on Love & Rockets song. Maybe I’d put a link in there if it wasn’t such a hassle, but then, I didn’t start this blog to complain about my current technological limitations.
No.
I started this blog to express and examine my beliefs about reality. About what is.
While I was out having a smoke, I got to thinking about Kant. I got to thinking about his neo-platonistic views of an ideal—the essence of something that lies beyond the appearance of something. I can’t quite recall what his name for it was, but it was hidden behind or beyond the manifestation; similar, I guess, to how there are Platonic ideals of things, the instances of which are pale shadows of the perfection. I guess I could look this shit up, but I’m going free flow here.
And somehow this got me dredging up Anslem and his perfect being (being God). It’s not necessarily immediately related, but my mind’s made a connection there—probably something to do with this ideal form that must exist because part of its perfection would be existence. But wait, wasn’t it Kant who established that existence isn’t a predicate or quality of a thing?
Wow, I’d have to look that up.
Anyway, then next it was old Uncle Nietzsche’s, “if you stare into the void, the void stares back” (at least I think this (likely paraphrase) was his). And what happened here in my head was that this perfection, this ideal, this thing that is but is not possibly experienced by us, became that void. And earlier tonight this notion of perfection crossed my mind and I thought about how practice never makes perfect, but it can and often does make better.
Perfection is absence. Ideal is absence. In absence it is the imperfect things, the things of this world, which manifest to fill the void. It is, my mind turns again, pratityasamupada: the void stares into itself, and its absolute absence creates inter-dependent-co-arising manifestation. I can not stare into myself and see nothing; the world cannot stare into itself and see nothing. If there is something to stare, then there must be something to be stared at, and these things are manifestations of nothing and all.
And while maybe that was the nugget I was mining for, the mind then turned to Existentialism, and of course, the notions of despair and longing it carries; although, perhaps transformed, through alchemical process, into satisfaction and relief—turning (or burning) the dross into dreams.
That was a bit of a riff on Love & Rockets song. Maybe I’d put a link in there if it wasn’t such a hassle, but then, I didn’t start this blog to complain about my current technological limitations.
No.
I started this blog to express and examine my beliefs about reality. About what is.
While I was out having a smoke, I got to thinking about Kant. I got to thinking about his neo-platonistic views of an ideal—the essence of something that lies beyond the appearance of something. I can’t quite recall what his name for it was, but it was hidden behind or beyond the manifestation; similar, I guess, to how there are Platonic ideals of things, the instances of which are pale shadows of the perfection. I guess I could look this shit up, but I’m going free flow here.
And somehow this got me dredging up Anslem and his perfect being (being God). It’s not necessarily immediately related, but my mind’s made a connection there—probably something to do with this ideal form that must exist because part of its perfection would be existence. But wait, wasn’t it Kant who established that existence isn’t a predicate or quality of a thing?
Wow, I’d have to look that up.
Anyway, then next it was old Uncle Nietzsche’s, “if you stare into the void, the void stares back” (at least I think this (likely paraphrase) was his). And what happened here in my head was that this perfection, this ideal, this thing that is but is not possibly experienced by us, became that void. And earlier tonight this notion of perfection crossed my mind and I thought about how practice never makes perfect, but it can and often does make better.
Perfection is absence. Ideal is absence. In absence it is the imperfect things, the things of this world, which manifest to fill the void. It is, my mind turns again, pratityasamupada: the void stares into itself, and its absolute absence creates inter-dependent-co-arising manifestation. I can not stare into myself and see nothing; the world cannot stare into itself and see nothing. If there is something to stare, then there must be something to be stared at, and these things are manifestations of nothing and all.
And while maybe that was the nugget I was mining for, the mind then turned to Existentialism, and of course, the notions of despair and longing it carries; although, perhaps transformed, through alchemical process, into satisfaction and relief—turning (or burning) the dross into dreams.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Trip
Well, I'm back from my week away. It turns out I didn't much--read: none--time to write and think and reflect. Conditions simply did not permit these things as I hardly had any time alone, and when I did, the setting and context would not have been productive to journaling.
Of course, now that I reflect back upon it, I could have spent some of that alone time merely thinking, feeling, and poking around ideas and patterns and structures and such. Those things which I wish to refamiliarize myself, and continue to explore and write about.
It's funny. When I thought about how I had nothing really to report re: progress on what I had mentioned in my previous post, well, I had a moment or two where I thought about simply not posting here at all. Maybe even a flash of simply letting it go. But nah, I've to keep knocking away at this, keep circling myself back around that circling thing called life--its loops and whirls, its spirals and springs. So yeah, maybe I'll bust out another entry on the things I was thinking about a few weeks back, which I recorded in the previously mentioned journal. I kinda' have a desire to keep these more personal sort of posts distinct from other posts, which is why I also won't label these posts--if I write enough, they'll be lost in the archives, and the actual material that I wish to explore will stand out through the tags. Whew, that was a longish sentence, heh.
Of course, now that I reflect back upon it, I could have spent some of that alone time merely thinking, feeling, and poking around ideas and patterns and structures and such. Those things which I wish to refamiliarize myself, and continue to explore and write about.
It's funny. When I thought about how I had nothing really to report re: progress on what I had mentioned in my previous post, well, I had a moment or two where I thought about simply not posting here at all. Maybe even a flash of simply letting it go. But nah, I've to keep knocking away at this, keep circling myself back around that circling thing called life--its loops and whirls, its spirals and springs. So yeah, maybe I'll bust out another entry on the things I was thinking about a few weeks back, which I recorded in the previously mentioned journal. I kinda' have a desire to keep these more personal sort of posts distinct from other posts, which is why I also won't label these posts--if I write enough, they'll be lost in the archives, and the actual material that I wish to explore will stand out through the tags. Whew, that was a longish sentence, heh.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Leaving
I'm leaving my hometown for a bit and heading to a different city for the next week. While there, I'll be trying to quit smoking, I'll probably drink much less, and there's gonna' be less (probably none) uh...self-medicating. Anyway, it'll be a bit of a journey for sure--I haven't been on one in quite some time--and, oh yeah, I won't have much access to the internet, which will also be a big change.
This comes at an interesting time when there have been several observable changes in the aspects/structures of reality that I'm personally acquainted with. One rather large change is that a popular occult site has shut down--one that's been running for many years now, and which I have participated in, although very scantly for the last couple years. At one point I used it as an outlet for some of the stuff I was working on a couple years ago before I kinda' crashed and stopped writing.
It's weird, 'cause I couldn't bring myself to write here for the last few days, and it was largely due to my last post, which is all abstract/philosophical. I didn't really intend for this blog to be only that, but once I wrote it, I felt like I had to write more in the same vein. And I mean, I likely will sooner or later, but I felt like I painted myself into a corner: in essence, I placed a set of limits and boundaries on the structure. And yeah, part of it felt like I had to live up to expectations--entirely self-imposed, apparently--of writing for an audience. But the whole point was to have this space so I could write for myself. So here I am, writing for myself.
Anyway, since I'm kinda' itching to write, but won't be doing so online, I've decided to get back to the pen and paper journaling that I have done off and on in the past--for some stretches much longer than others! So I started writing in a notebook I've had around for years, one I started to work on a magnum opus of mathematics in. It didn't get very far, heh. But I started writing and sketching in it the same night I also started this journal, so I reckon it's much like a companion space to this space, likely more intimate though.
So yeah, I might post a little more on here later tonight--something again more abstract, something I've been working on in the other book--or I might simply take those ideas on vacation with me and see what they look like when I get back.
This comes at an interesting time when there have been several observable changes in the aspects/structures of reality that I'm personally acquainted with. One rather large change is that a popular occult site has shut down--one that's been running for many years now, and which I have participated in, although very scantly for the last couple years. At one point I used it as an outlet for some of the stuff I was working on a couple years ago before I kinda' crashed and stopped writing.
It's weird, 'cause I couldn't bring myself to write here for the last few days, and it was largely due to my last post, which is all abstract/philosophical. I didn't really intend for this blog to be only that, but once I wrote it, I felt like I had to write more in the same vein. And I mean, I likely will sooner or later, but I felt like I painted myself into a corner: in essence, I placed a set of limits and boundaries on the structure. And yeah, part of it felt like I had to live up to expectations--entirely self-imposed, apparently--of writing for an audience. But the whole point was to have this space so I could write for myself. So here I am, writing for myself.
Anyway, since I'm kinda' itching to write, but won't be doing so online, I've decided to get back to the pen and paper journaling that I have done off and on in the past--for some stretches much longer than others! So I started writing in a notebook I've had around for years, one I started to work on a magnum opus of mathematics in. It didn't get very far, heh. But I started writing and sketching in it the same night I also started this journal, so I reckon it's much like a companion space to this space, likely more intimate though.
So yeah, I might post a little more on here later tonight--something again more abstract, something I've been working on in the other book--or I might simply take those ideas on vacation with me and see what they look like when I get back.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Structures And Etc.
We all live inside structures. There are many different types of structures: economic, social, political, religious, geographical...ah but with that last we blur a line a little don't we? The rest of the list is more, shall we say 'ethereal' (sometimes called 'paradigms'), but that last is more concrete, more physical. And we exist inside physical structures too--I exist inside the structure of this apartment, for instance; but we also exist in bodies, which are nothing more than a kind of biological structure, of which there are currently many different kinds of biological structures (although some scientists tell us there are many types of biological structures dying off with each passing day). All of which, as far as we can tell, are dependent on a handful of the same types of protein strains--but that's another story.
Robert Anton Wilson called paradigms 'reality tunnels'. The reality tunnel is a more versatile concept as it can be intimately personal as well as a representation of a larger group mind--a structure of people who have some similar set of ideas about interpreting experience. Ultimately, each person has a reality tunnel--a structured way of interacting with the world--and this reality tunnel generally shares many common elements with the tunnels of some other set of people.
Something interesting to note is that the whole of an individual reality tunnel need not be internally self-consistent. Indeed, like Lovecraft reckoned, if we could only put all of our experiences into relation, then we would go mad with the absurdity of it all! But in the meantime, we operate through our reliance on, and relation to, structures of meaning and of being; further, within the set of interpretations that compose our reality tunnel, we selectively choose (consciously--with intent--or otherwise) from possibly contradicting methods of relating to our experiences of being.
I'm writing about this so I can set up the fact that it is likely that I'll be discussing structures quite a bit over the course of this blog. I probably won't always call them structures though, but rather I'll discuss them by name, like 'Christianity', for example, or 'magick' or 'quantum mechanics'--or even something like 'the Calgary Tower'. The point being here is that structures of all variety or kind seem basic to human experience--not merely my experience, but everyone's experience--and that's what I want to start getting at again: everyone's experience.
Yeah, I'm probably one of the last of the "great system builders"--their time in philosophy has past in the shadow of modern philosophical thinking, at least, that's what I heard talk of around the department several years ago, back when I was on a campus and enrolled in the hallowed halls of academia. Their time has past, btw, because it is generally accepted that no one system (or structure) can hold up to all forms of philosophical critique. I mean, Godel's theorem applies to the seemingly most rigourous and formal of structures: mathematics, and it states that the structure of mathematics cannot verify its own truth. So if the most logically consistent structure cannot establish its own absolute reality (I'm slanting the interpretation here, yes), then how can the structures that make up any one being's reality tunnel--which are generally more sloppy and fuzzy than mathematics--be mutually self-consistent and collectively verify the over-arching structure of the reality tunnel's own absolute truth?
They can't. And I'm OK with that. We only need to recognize that a description or interpretation of experience must take this contradiction into account. We merely need to realize that we live in the reflection of some unnameable ultimate absurdity and all we can do is laugh. Without the laughter, as Lovecraft feared, we simply go mad.
Robert Anton Wilson called paradigms 'reality tunnels'. The reality tunnel is a more versatile concept as it can be intimately personal as well as a representation of a larger group mind--a structure of people who have some similar set of ideas about interpreting experience. Ultimately, each person has a reality tunnel--a structured way of interacting with the world--and this reality tunnel generally shares many common elements with the tunnels of some other set of people.
Something interesting to note is that the whole of an individual reality tunnel need not be internally self-consistent. Indeed, like Lovecraft reckoned, if we could only put all of our experiences into relation, then we would go mad with the absurdity of it all! But in the meantime, we operate through our reliance on, and relation to, structures of meaning and of being; further, within the set of interpretations that compose our reality tunnel, we selectively choose (consciously--with intent--or otherwise) from possibly contradicting methods of relating to our experiences of being.
I'm writing about this so I can set up the fact that it is likely that I'll be discussing structures quite a bit over the course of this blog. I probably won't always call them structures though, but rather I'll discuss them by name, like 'Christianity', for example, or 'magick' or 'quantum mechanics'--or even something like 'the Calgary Tower'. The point being here is that structures of all variety or kind seem basic to human experience--not merely my experience, but everyone's experience--and that's what I want to start getting at again: everyone's experience.
Yeah, I'm probably one of the last of the "great system builders"--their time in philosophy has past in the shadow of modern philosophical thinking, at least, that's what I heard talk of around the department several years ago, back when I was on a campus and enrolled in the hallowed halls of academia. Their time has past, btw, because it is generally accepted that no one system (or structure) can hold up to all forms of philosophical critique. I mean, Godel's theorem applies to the seemingly most rigourous and formal of structures: mathematics, and it states that the structure of mathematics cannot verify its own truth. So if the most logically consistent structure cannot establish its own absolute reality (I'm slanting the interpretation here, yes), then how can the structures that make up any one being's reality tunnel--which are generally more sloppy and fuzzy than mathematics--be mutually self-consistent and collectively verify the over-arching structure of the reality tunnel's own absolute truth?
They can't. And I'm OK with that. We only need to recognize that a description or interpretation of experience must take this contradiction into account. We merely need to realize that we live in the reflection of some unnameable ultimate absurdity and all we can do is laugh. Without the laughter, as Lovecraft feared, we simply go mad.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Begend
I need a space to begin again. To simply think and write about thoughts without attempting to woo an audience, and I hope without too much self-censor as this is certainly a beastie I need to overcome. But I don't really want to say "overcome" because it implies a battle, well, at least in a way. So it's kinda' like that, but more a sort of "see through" or "move beyond" or something like that too.
Whatever it is, I feel like I really want to start writing again, which really means to start thinking again. Not that I've ever stopped thinking, but I mean thinking deeply, with creativity and passion. And I don't want to feel like I'm trying to spread something, like I need this to be shared with others. I guess I mean I simply want some space of my own, without the burden of trying to get others to understand.
And I guess there's a confession in there too, because the last time I really got into trying to reach out to others through writing and thought, well, I feel like I made lots of promises and commitments that I didn't keep. Some to myself and some to others. So there's a certain sense of guilt that goes along with expressing creative thoughts and ideas. And I'm beginning to feel that it's time to forgive myself for not being able to follow through with past projects and commitments that were connected to creative expression.
I really need to move on.
So yeah, "Begend." The beginning and the end rolled into one. The end of something brings the beginning of something else, which will in turn end to bring about something else. This is the way of things, and I want to get back to thinking about, expressing, but most of all living, "the way of things." I'm not entirely sure what that means right now--mostly with regard to the living part, but feeling a yearning to try and figure it out, yet again.
I guess this means this journal is to record some sort of journey--well mostly anyway. To rediscover and renew what currently lies mostly dormant. If I was being all artsy or whatever in my writing I'd express it like this:
Re: New
Re: Discover
And there's so much stirring in my head that I'm working on. Much of it is past works and ideas bubbling with fresh insight. I guess it makes sense that I really had to kind of die to get here. I had to end to start again. And if there isn't a whole lot of life experience that goes along with that--yuck! But see, that's part of it. The old turning shit into gold routine of alchemy. And this is what I want to get back to, to renew, to begend again, the alchemy of existence--specifically my existence as that's the only experiencing I can know--which is universal to any experiencing thing, so I'm not simply being self-centered or conceited here:
It all begends with an I.
Whatever it is, I feel like I really want to start writing again, which really means to start thinking again. Not that I've ever stopped thinking, but I mean thinking deeply, with creativity and passion. And I don't want to feel like I'm trying to spread something, like I need this to be shared with others. I guess I mean I simply want some space of my own, without the burden of trying to get others to understand.
And I guess there's a confession in there too, because the last time I really got into trying to reach out to others through writing and thought, well, I feel like I made lots of promises and commitments that I didn't keep. Some to myself and some to others. So there's a certain sense of guilt that goes along with expressing creative thoughts and ideas. And I'm beginning to feel that it's time to forgive myself for not being able to follow through with past projects and commitments that were connected to creative expression.
I really need to move on.
So yeah, "Begend." The beginning and the end rolled into one. The end of something brings the beginning of something else, which will in turn end to bring about something else. This is the way of things, and I want to get back to thinking about, expressing, but most of all living, "the way of things." I'm not entirely sure what that means right now--mostly with regard to the living part, but feeling a yearning to try and figure it out, yet again.
I guess this means this journal is to record some sort of journey--well mostly anyway. To rediscover and renew what currently lies mostly dormant. If I was being all artsy or whatever in my writing I'd express it like this:
Re: New
Re: Discover
And there's so much stirring in my head that I'm working on. Much of it is past works and ideas bubbling with fresh insight. I guess it makes sense that I really had to kind of die to get here. I had to end to start again. And if there isn't a whole lot of life experience that goes along with that--yuck! But see, that's part of it. The old turning shit into gold routine of alchemy. And this is what I want to get back to, to renew, to begend again, the alchemy of existence--specifically my existence as that's the only experiencing I can know--which is universal to any experiencing thing, so I'm not simply being self-centered or conceited here:
It all begends with an I.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
