|Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010|
|Sunday, September 28th, 2008|
3:00 am - Re: All the Truth about 2012
Some more calculations for those interested:|
I defined a "charming date" as a date made of only 3 digits (or less).
2.2.2000 (two digits)
and many more in 2000
( Read more...Collapse )
The bottom line:
Nothing like this 2000-2012 charm since ever we can really remember, and nothing like we can predict in any sense of future, and with nothing even coming close, until 2100-2102.
For all reasons mentioned, our time is the perfect "time-dates-obsession-period".
(comment on this)
|Thursday, September 25th, 2008|
4:39 am - All the Truth about 2012
We all heard about 2012.|
So many Explanations and Stories.
I've heard stories about aliens, about astrology, about changing the rhythm of time, Heaven on Earth, energies, other dimensions, bad-stuff-happening, galactic-astrological-synchronizations, changes in calenders, parties, and so many contradicting, not-really-scientific, not-always-rational data.
I seek to explain the phenomenon, without stubborn rhetoric, without any vague concepts, and without any energy / aliens / dimensional / other-unproven-data (or at least considered unproven).
Having said that, I'll try to explain the 2012 phenomenon, or the phenomenon of 2012 obsession.
My first argument:
Numbers effect people.
People are charmed, for example, by certain numbers, and are afraid, from other numbers, for a variety of reasons.
I don't claim everyone is charmed and afraid by numbers, but enough people do, so in the global-scale, number do effect people, not necessarily in the same manner.
(The number X can charm one person, deter another, and not effect another two people, in a group of 4, for example).
I find it easy to be charmed by
And I am charmed by the fact they are both the same day.
But I would like to focus more on dates and numbers that make people fear.
Some dates frighten some of us:
Some numbers that might frighten a Christian:
My second argument:
The 9 - 11 combination is problematic enough in order to become a date of destruction.
(Sounds strange, but read it through).
I don't ask here to explain this, just to show this, but I'll try to give an explanation nonetheless.
One possible explanation, is the common characteristic of 9 and 11.
They are both very close to 10, and this is what is common, and so their combination emphasizes this.
10 is a very special number for the human psyche, and usually symbolizes wholeness and completeness and perfection, not for a mystical, or a numerological, or a really-stupid reason, but because we have 10 fingers, and they are the base of our counting system, and 10 symbolizes the completeness of the counting, the 10 fingers, and the 10 digits.
Those of us who look for grades will see a perfection in 10, since it is the perfect grade.
Those of us who look for completeness in sexuality, and in the merging of the opposites, will also see in 10 completeness, as 1 is the male organ, 0 is the female organ, and 10 is their combination in one complete whole perfect unity.
Those of us with religious upbringing can see 10 in the 10 commandments and other important symbols.
Symbolic connections between 9 and 11, are exactly what moves away from that wholeness, and emphasizes the distinction from wholeness.
You might think I'm only talking about the WTC 9/11 case, but you'll understand soon.
I don't think there has to be a cosmic force to make more destructions on dates with 9 and 11, but somehow this combination effects enough people for us to have more on such dates.
Maybe the explanation I gave for why this could happen doesn't convince, but this is not the point, the point is that it is like that, statistically, as we'll see in some detailed examples.
For simplicity, I'll use both the European style of writing dates - day.month.year - E - and the North-American style - month.day.year - U.
You might think that finding 9's and 11's in the 20th century is not so hard, but remember, the 20th century was the most bloody of them all, which strengthens my theory.
( Read more...Collapse )
My fourth argument:
All the spiritual, cultural, pseudo-scientific interest around the change of 2012, is because of the 9-11 symbolism I showed.
Check out the date given to mark the change:
Right after 2011, and shortly after 2009, just as they disappear from the digits of the years.
The 12th month, right after the 11th month and shortly after September, just as they disappear from the digits of the months.
Not one digit like a 9
Not 1X like an 11
not 20 like 9 + 11
The 21st day of the 12th month of the only year with a 12 in its digits, in the 21st Century.
So much charm, so much completeness, and wholeness, and symmetry, and even perfection. you got the 1 and 0 of the 10, next to each other. you got nothing to remind of the "away from completeness" in this date. Nothing to remind you of the 9-11 combinations.
12 and 21
right before 2013
and right before Christmas (never 9 or 11 on Christmas in the day.month duo)
you got 12, 13, and 21, all can be seen as "going away from 11".
This is truly a nice charming date which symbolizes a drastic change from a period we had many 9-11 combinations in the Western calender, to a period with much much less.
One of the things 2012 theorists talk about, is the subject of time, and the change of time, and the change of the perception of time.
They all fail to understand that what will really happen, is that as far as dates go, time will effect us differently.
This is the expected change in our "connection with time".
Time will be much less frightening and much less dangerous.
One last thing.
If somehow I gave you a reason to think the coming 2009 and 2011 will be horrible, this is not necessarily what I think. 1909 and 1911 were not so nice as years, but certainly not the worst of the 20th century. And even so, by 2012 it will be behind us.
I'd be more than happy to get interesting remarks, as long as they are to the point, about my theory.
(please don't analyze my signature in your replies)
BLUE ELECTRIC MONKEY BLUE ELECTRIC MONKEY
(1 comment | comment on this)
|Tuesday, February 20th, 2007|
|Wednesday, February 7th, 2007|
12:47 am - Blues4Kali- A Cult Classic for the End Times
What will Winter Solstice bring in 2012?
...an instant of Karma? ...an ethereal spiral dance of the collective soul? ... cosmic judgment leveled against civilization's expanse? ...destruction of the world as we know it? ...a chance for a new start? ...the rise and the revenge of the Goddess? or simply another day in the life of paranoia?
These are the false prophesies that your pastor warned you about!
Reality Exchange Program
"Makes DMT seem like a whip-it."
Crazy Bear said there'd be days like this. As usual, no one believed him. Now, all I want to know is: where IS that lifeboat, and how DO I ditch this ship of fools, without any of these bliss ninnies noticing that I'm already gone?
Captain, my ass. We are equal in this sea of madness.
That iceberg is looking awfully big.
Amana Mission is on a quest to save the world, and the only problem is, she can't remember why she got involved with such an obvious scam in the first place. Jesus saves. Christ. What a loser.
Kali kills first, and recycles later.
Hitchhikers, load up for a ride to the Other Side. You may wish you had gone Greyhound.
*A cranky band of prankster peace warriors who absolutely cannot resist messing with each other's minds, no matter the cost.
*Cocky alchemy-dabbling quantum surfers, navigating the Ethersphere with hand-held computers, switching timelines to find a better party vibe and swap tips about the best temporary toilets for use as interdimensional portals.
*A burnt-out visionary hippie millionaire on a mission from Gaia to build a better "communitopia" by underwriting a convoy carrying telepathic priestesses.
*A wheelchair-bound mindpilot propelling a crystal-powered Seed Bank toward the post-Apocalyptic Garden, with psychic precision...and a predilection for high-velocity extreme driving.
*Hermaphrodite time-jumper fleeing a fate worse than death.
*Anarchist ghettoes where anything goes-except escape.
*Ancient Principals vying like sweatsoaked carpetbaggers for our loyalty as the Final Vote is tallied.
*Long-haired security patrols collecting a cannabis tribute tax from all pilgrims to the Valley of Fun.
*And an underground meat mafia bringing a black magic revival to a bloodless dreamworld gone bland.
All brought together by a secret psychedelic superdrug that tunes users in to reality through the eyes of another archetypal avatar inhabiting a different state of space and time. Mahayana made easy. Budding Buddha natures are running amuck on a virtual superhighway where all roads lead to the Bo tree and singularity.
Twenty-first century Tantra is about more than sex, drugs, and
rock and roll.Confronting the Karma of every wasted breath is only the first step.
Welcome to the End Times. Kali awaits. She already knows who you are.
The 21st century counterculture is even weirder than it appears on the surface. This is not your mommy’s MTV Road Rules.
Ride along on this mesmerizing, metaphor-packed bus trip toward ecstasy and enlightenment, as three real-time guides-Amana, Sissy, and Deva, let you in on what they learned when they asked what It was really all about, after all.
Become them for a multilevel metafictional tour of infinity and awaken yourself to the miracle-a-minute magic of mighty Mother Kali!
Read Online Novel Blues 4 Kali at www.blues4kali.com
current mood: creative
(comment on this)
|Wednesday, December 13th, 2006|
5:47 pm - Subjectivity and Profundity
Objectivity without a predicate nor a coefficient is what I mean by 'pure objectivity.' It is hard to imagine objectivity without the one imagining it, but that is precisely what objectivity is, independent of the subject. Such a conception of objectivity is, self-referentially, a conception still, but the concept's abstraction gives it the power to transcend finite concepts, just as the concept of the infinite does. In this same way, the infinite as a concept transcends its own status as a concept, since it is defined as that which overflows definition. Therefore, though pure objectivity (superjectivity or surjectivity) cannot be pinned down (yet pure subjectivity is the epitome of pinning down since I have defined it as the Infinitesimal), it yet can be known by the concept "Profundity," the source of all meaning and value, or the absolute value of value, or the absolute of value, or the value of the absolute.|
So of course Profundity is a concept, and as such a form, but the syntactical object, the literal word is definitely distinct in what it signifies, which is its meaning, the only meaning which can truly be a consense, the only meaning which can be absolutely agreed upon, the meaning of meaning. The semantic object of the term is the infinite of significance. An object derived from objectivity is a contexturalized content, and so a latency of profundity, but a value still, since it is a content. But a content (particularized) is not polycontenturality, which, drawing on Gotthard Gunther's polycontexturality-as-subjectivity thesis, is Profundity.
Thats what I mean by transcendental objectivity. Objectivity in parentheses is the profane and omnipresent object of experience to which those who call themselves materialist-objectivists are attached, and they are the so-called empiricists, but their affiliations do not degrade transcendence itself. Transcendence is inherent to integration, and thus to integers, which even empiricists count on. Empiricists are overly-analytical, and to this extent, they do not appreciate the totality which is one and whole, since they analyze it, in whatever terms, at least in terms of their own consciousness. This is why and how their consciousness lacks essential novelty, and ultimate profundity.
Pure Subjectivity, in my view which I believe is correct based on my experience so far, is the transcendental oneness of the Infinitesimal, the dimensionless point which traces all distinctions, and from the literature I'm into I've identified it with the term 'first distinction' from Spencer-Brown and the post-disciplinary field of cybernetics and semiotics which took to it, but its meaning can be easily inferred, for instance, by comparison to the popular term 'first dimension.' I call it the Infinitesimal since this is how it appears in relation to its background of the Absolute Infinite. It is the entity which traces all distinct forms which appear in every regard, it is the one.
(comment on this)
|Thursday, November 23rd, 2006|
10:48 am - The Infinitesimal: There Can Be Only One, but who else believes that?
Does anyone know of anyone else's view of the infinitesimal, unity over infinity in fractional form, which is the unicity of one-ness (any unit) which condenses to singularity (without a multiplicity of singularity, acknowledging the paradox, ignoring the plurality)?|
I mean to quote the Highlander "There can be only one" [such entity]. I mean, how could there be another in the same frame of reference? They would condense to being the same one. Newton, Leibniz and Abraham Robinson adopted the definition of infinitesimal[s] as non-zero, but less than 'any known number,' suggestive of the "unknowable" aspect of this number, but its not so much unknowable as not graphically representable. Every point has some dimension, its expression is its extension. So the real dimensionless point (usually considered ideal, in contrast to real) is not visible, but it is because it is the viewer, the point of perspectivity, of the observer. If viewed, it could only be sight in itself, of itself.
The definition "non-zero, but smaller than any known number" opens the discussion for a plurality, and reason would have a multiplicity of such entities as they represent the infinitesimal distinctions all forms of and in our world, which compose it. I contrast this view with the singularity of the infinitesimal, that there can be only one real or true infinitesimal. The only other person (in this case, a mathematician and philosopher) I've found to hold this view is Lorenzo Pena of Spain, editor of the electronic journal Sorities. Is there anyone else?
I don't think multiplicity or plurality doesn't exist, of course it does, but there is no discontinuity of parts, it is contained in the continuum ("the real number line" R in mathematics), the four-dimensional space-time matter-energy continuum in our experiential case. The contents of the continuum plus the continuum compose the totality which we are given, the present. That totality is the unicity of one-ness, the singularity, the Infinitesimal. Other continuums (there must be infinitely many) also condense to the Infinitesimal this way, it is the alpha and omega in common. I identify it with the First Distinction of Spencer-Brown, which cybernetics has taken to. And I set the First Distinction in contrast with the First Dimension, that linearity of the number line (expression of the continuum), the first dimension being the first expression of the first distinction which is ever-present. The First Distinction is the cybernetic Proemial Relation between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity, and every distinction (and keys, key distinctions) are only instances of it. The transcendental distinction (also called difference) is the Spirit which animates us (as the point of perspectivity, the supreme being seeing itself being, that 'negativity within God'), the point at which the pen (-ultimate) strikes the paper (or 'page of assertion,' 'unmarked space') in the book. The abstract pen-point of punctuation is the programmer of all programs, the allegorical writer, the author, one-self, the Spirit as negativity in God, and I've found it to be with mathematical precision "The Infinitesimal."
So my question is, who else demands one true infinitesimal? Or am I to take credit for this radical conception of 'unity over infinity'? Please stop me from that, I don't want to be so alone in this expression. But I've searched a lot, and haven't found much confirmation.
(comment on this)
|Tuesday, November 21st, 2006|
11:11 am - The Infinitesimal and the Infinite are the so-called One and Zero
Leibniz and Newton defined infinitesimals as points which get ever samller akin to the distinctions which define everything. I have a definition of distinction which includes such a conception of infinitesimals, yet it is absolute oneness, the unicity of all units. In my definition, which I take from the one of two-value logic, (wherein the other is left unmarked, called the unmarked space) the one is perfect (pure and transcendental) self-reference, which is pure subjectivity to metaphysicians and scientists of consciousness.|
Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis also used infinitesimal distinctions to produce a calculus. But both these instances where empirically defined distinctions, such as the scissors's junction, or the point of overlap or contrast. The true infinitesimal is not an imaginary number, and this is my theory (I have only found a contemporary mathematician who agrees, named Pena, the editor of Sorites in Spain), the real infinitesimal is one, and there can be only one, and every instance of number "one," as any reference to one-self (and Schrodinger would agree) is the numerically one, the real beginning of the number line (and continuum, not at dimension one, but at the First Distinction, dimension one is the first extension), as I suggest that zero is only a number as much as the Absolute Infinite is. The so-called origin is not zero, but one, and the ultimate reality of the real numbers is what they are only in reference to as a whole (taken in the first place to be one, all numbers) and they are N over (fractional) Infinity, and One is Unity Over Infinity, the real Infinitesimal, There Can Be Only One (to quote M. Lambert).
See what I did? Zero doesn't exist. Nothing is just that. Non-being does not exist. That part is so very simple. But wait, it's all quite simple...
Oneness is being-in-itself, which is pure self-reference. One is absolutely imaginary in its staticity, since its reference to the Other (transcendentally, the Infinitely and Totally Other which Levinas speaks of, to label the Infinite as teh Other or pure Objectivity or Superjectivity) manifests in-so-much as Other Numbers manifest. In other words, One refers to whatever number has already been counted this time (empirically), otherwise it only refers to the Infinite.
Infinity is overwhelming. To capture its meaning is futile. We do have a word for it, but etymologically it is a negative word meaning "not-finite" where "finite" refers to our state of being, which is not the state of being-in-itself (the first phase of phase-locked space) but of beings (to make the ontico-ontological distinction) wherein we are taken to be only one of them (so-called finite). But we are one, the Subejct of the sentence, and of the universe of discourse, we are singular, I am. I am pure subjectivity in the absolute sense, and you are too, and so are we. So 'we' means one too.
Infinity is in permanent super-position, for it to be posited requires not perfect superjectivity (objectivity) but perfect subjectivity, which is the Spirit which animates us. The Absolute Value of the Infinite (the Infinities of pluralists, including trans-finities) is the Absolute Infinite. The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. That's a bold declarative statement.
The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality.
The Infinitesimal is Pen-Ultimate Reality.
There can be only one Infinitesimal, and it is Unity over Infinity, the Unity of Infinity, Spinoza and Plotinus' Infinity, as if 'The One'.
Now is the time for these secrets to be revealed, and this is the place of it.
The Zero doesn't exist, and if you demand it to be, you must acknowledge your one-ness, and your two-valued logic. But ultimately you are One, and you are the origin of reality.
Thanks a lot,
(comment on this)
|Sunday, November 12th, 2006|
12:20 am - Abstr-Activate!
Act-ually, the subject of this post is subjectivity. The point of the post is the infinitesimal point, not an infinitesimal, as if there were another, but that the true infinitesimal, like the absolute infinite of infinity before it, is singular. If it is presumed to be in plurality, it would be a multiplicity of units, whose unicity is merely one abstraction removed from its reality as unicity itself.|
To quote M. Lambert, "There can be only one." I refer to being-in-itself. Being-in-itself is the self-presentation of the Absolute, or the Absolute self-presentation. But I identify the self with the presence of this being. So to avoid misleading redundancy, let us distinguish being it from seeing it. To see it would posit two infinitesimals, the point signified and the signifier as a "point of consciousness" and so it (seeing it, that relation) wouldn't be dimensionless, it would be precisely the first dimension, that seeing it is its first extension. I am paraphrasing George Spencer-Brown whose "Laws of Form" reified the "First Distinction," as he goes into it "seeing being seeing being seeing being seeing being" (our dimension of time emerging with our material realm at the fifth crossing of the distinction) in the Esalen Institute conference of 1973 (transcripts at lawsofform.org) that Alan Watts organized with Heinz von Foerster and John Lilly, Gregory Bateson in attendance with "distinguished others."
Are you prepared to accept my definition of dimensions?
Having established the point, don't ask me that one, I'd love to get into it, actually I live for it, and it enlivens me (I consider it intellectual samadhi), but don't use the rhetorical form, the critical "what is the point of this?" colloquial idiocy. The point is established, I consider it pen-ultimate reality. Tangentiality may ensue, and re-entry obviates.
The Absolute Infinite is ultimate reality. The finite continuum of subjective experience (actually subjective-objective) is included in the Absolute Infinite, which is to say Infinity contains the finite, but is only obvious in the void state, only obviates in Nirvana (a negative term), the non-relative void, as if there could be nothing, as if there could be everything. Oblivious to ultimate reality, which is always already even more than ever present, we can return to it by concepts such as the Infinite, with mathematical precision. George Cantor went mad with it!
What are the consequences of this? Nothing (which there cannnot be) or (nor?) non-being connot be (definitely) save Infinity. To distinguish the formless Infinity, it's Absolute Value is taken for the Absolute Infinite, the Superject.
Are you prepared to note that the Absolute Infinite is God!? I am, it means the meaning of meaning to me, I call it profundity, the infinity of consciousness whose nature is exceedence, ungraspable.
Are you ready for my definition of the Spirit which animates us? It is the Infinitesimal, pure self-reference, difference itself, transcendental subjectivity.
God is Love (Unconditional being the only condition!), and the Spirit is Life itself, pure self-reference.
Thats what I call a "completed metaphysical system." Attack!
(1 comment | comment on this)
|Monday, August 21st, 2006|
9:51 am - Magick @ Burning Man
I know a few of you are going to Burning Man.. and thought I would pass this along.
Occultists' Cocktail and Mummy Unwrapping Soiree
Wednesday 7:00-9:00 pm
Temple of All Gods Cell in the Mad Scientists
@3:00 and Esplanade
Magicians, Sorcerers, Witches, Sacred Whores, Chaotes,
Priests and all other practitioners of Thee Magickal
Arts take heed... the Temple if All Gods will be
hosting an Occultists' Cocktail and Mummy Unwrapping!
We will be unwrapping a freshly unearthed Mummy to
observe first hand the ancient Mysteries of the mighty
Egyptians, as well as exchanging knowledge and
techniques to hone our mastery of the Unseen Forces
and enjoy the Dark Music of the Fallen Seraphim.
(To step out of period patter for a moment: don't miss
this opportunity to network with your fellow
magicians, occultists and scholars of the esoteric on
the Playa. We'll be spinning dark ambient, trip-hop
and industrial. Feel free to bring a personal
performance, your favorite spirits, your concubines and
your cabana boys.)
The Temple of All Gods is a multi-dimensional
spiritual _expression of the God/Goddess within each
person through dancing, trance and induced altered
states, erasing the veil between the
physical/spiritual through art and music, tantric
intoxication of the flesh and spirit possession in
order to reach a state of pure ecstatic bliss. In more
practical terms, the TAG project is a collection of
magickal individuals and groups from a myriad of
different paths and traditions such as African
Diaspora, Gardnerian Wicca, Thelema, Tantra, Feri,
Hedge Wizardry, and Chaos Magick. We are building a
public temple space with the goal of consciously
working with the magick of Burning Man. The Temple
will be open to all of the magicians, witches, and
shamans of the Playa when it is fully realized in
2007. Throughout the week we will be weaving a variety
of invitational rituals and incantations for the
gourmet magician; visit http://www.templeofallgods.org/.
(1 comment | comment on this)
|Saturday, March 25th, 2006|
|Friday, January 20th, 2006|
6:44 am - Prepare for Ludicrous Speed
The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awarded its annual prize for items written in their category of "Future Flight" to a paper calling for new tests into a 'new' hyperdrive engine. I emphasize 'new' because the idea is not, just the degree of seriousness with which it is taken. It is based off of theories put forth by a German scientist in the 50's. I imagine that since his ideas relied on the existence of more dimensions than were conceived/accepted by the scientific establishment at the time he was relegated to the bin with other assumed psychoceramic innovators such as Reich, but now with the popularity of string theory and the gradual dissemenation of the possibility of many as yet unperceived dimensions, his equations are being looked at in a different light.|
From the text: "In the early 1950s, Heim began to rewrite the equations of general
relativity in a quantum framework. He drew on Einstein's idea that the
gravitational force emerges from the dimensions of space and time, but
suggested that all fundamental forces, including electromagnetism,
might emerge from a new, different set of dimensions. Originally he had
four extra dimensions, but he discarded two of them believing that they
did not produce any forces, and settled for adding a new
two-dimensional "sub-space" onto Einstein's four-dimensional space-time.
Heim's six-dimensional world, the forces of gravity and
electromagnetism are coupled together. Even in our familiar
four-dimensional world, we can see a link between the two forces
through the behaviour of fundamental particles such as the electron. An
electron has both mass and charge. When an electron falls under the
pull of gravity its moving electric charge creates a magnetic field.
And if you use an electromagnetic field to accelerate an electron you
move the gravitational field associated with its mass. But in the four
dimensions we know, you cannot change the strength of gravity simply by
cranking up the electromagnetic field.
Heim's view of space and time, this limitation disappears. He claimed
it is possible to convert electromagnetic energy into gravitational and
back again, and speculated that a rotating magnetic field could reduce
the influence of gravity on a spacecraft enough for it to take off."Full Article HERE.
current mood: dorky
(2 comments | comment on this)
|Sunday, January 1st, 2006|
7:09 am - Quickened
I have been feeling very strongly this quickening or whatever it is that is happening on this world. Some of my experiences are documented here on LJ, but most of it is just too wierd to ever talk about, and probably not relevant either. I have listened to Art and Terrence speak on the subject extensively, and it seems to be something that everyone notices: The shamans, the prophets, the "remote veiwers" and psychics, even some scientists are saying there is something to this date in 2012. I am beyond doubt that something occurs.
Through my recent experiences I have formed a few ideas about what it may look like. I am assuming this is the place to post them. Keep in mind that these are theories ONLY!
Connection, strong connection between all the people, maybe all the everything. This may or may not be facilitated by technology, but I'm inclined to believe that it will be, by activities such as what we are doing here on the net in blogs. A collective existance within a universal mind, that old chestnut. This would, theoretically, unite us with all those people who have "Passed On"...
I definitely believe we will be capable of and practice advanced space travel, at least within our galaxy. I doubt this will be done in physical vessels, more likely will be some type of shamanic astral travel or chemicly induced flight that we end up figuring out (Thinking Sagan's "Contact" type of thing). There do seem to be many historical allusions of shamanic explorers traveling to "Other Worlds", that seems a clue.
I think that whatever it is, Terrence is onto something by pointing out these shamanistic practices of ancient cultures. After all, how would the Mayans and other peoples have known about this date? I believe it will have something to do with reclaiming those powers or amplifying them exponentially in some way.
I also am one of those who believes that we are being observed/studied/attacked because of this, that it is of intense interest to the rest of the sentient biological galaxy. I also think we should be wary of some of these species, they may covet this quality in us.
I think that if we can make it there it will be something wonderful. I do think that there are some dangerous hurdles though, and if we are not careful and caring we may indeed end up in a situation like that described by biblical and other spiritual texts' "End Times".
Let us strive toward the light of that date and all that which lives within us!
current mood: OM
(comment on this)
|Friday, December 30th, 2005|
5:26 pm - Mail out on Disclosure Project and recent petition aimed at U.N.
This issue weighs in above all others in 21st Century society. I've just sent this out to everyone in my address book... it's worth as many people as possible doing the same.|
NATIONS DECADE OF CONTACT"
Please support the UNITED NATIONS DECADE OF CONTACT, and let your friends and networks know!
is a one-off email regarding the Disclosure Project launched by Dr
Steven Greer. The project has gained new impetus following the recent
speech of former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Heller at the
Exopolitics Symposium held at Convocation Hall, University of Toronto.
Mr Heller wants greater openness from national Governments on the alien
and UFO fields and has joined the previous call for change by Steven
Greer's Disclosure Project where over one hundred officials from
military, government and civil life stood up at a global news
conference and claimed they were prepared to diclose their knowledge of
alien related phenomena in front of a court.
Additionally, this latest petition draws internationl
attention to the weaponisation of space. This is an issue the former
defence minister wants discussed by every national government and
follows the rather disturbing footage taken from a recent Space Shuttle
satellite feed where a ground based weapons system can clearly be seen
'firing' upon a UFO in the earths upper atmosphere. [See STS
48 shuttle mission] .
If any element of this information is
true, it re-arranges "politics" as we know it today and therefor there
is no higher issue in need of consideration.
Petetion in full is here:
Disclosure project video footage in various sizes for quick download or streaming: http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm
Email me back for shuttle video feed
Disclosure Project: http://www.disclosureproject.org/
(6 comments | comment on this)
|Sunday, November 13th, 2005|
7:45 pm - Chaosmagic.com World Meating 2006!
|Monday, August 15th, 2005|
10:16 pm - Singularity Updates -
|Monday, July 11th, 2005|
11:32 pm - One Man's Meat Is Another Man's Vat-Grown Protein-Fiber
My beloved runeshower tells me that as a matter of mental health to the extent possible I should avoid absorbing and re-transmitting negative news and ac-cen-tu-ate the positive, so with that in mind I refer you to the following links:|
which tell of how in a very few years we should be able to grow any amount of meat we wish, with no loss of flavor or texture, in industrial-quantity laboratory-style vats, with no animals having to suffer or be killed, and the chemistry adjusted to make it heart-healthy as well.
Robert Heinlein predicted it, original Star Trek predicted it, and now it's looming on the horizon here in the second half of the first decade of the 21st century.
We may get our jet packs and flying cars yet. In the meantime, I'll just my use my flip-open
communicator cellular speaker-phone to call somebody and tell them about this....
(5 comments | comment on this)
|Saturday, June 4th, 2005|
3:01 pm - http://www.csus.edu/indiv/v/vonmeierk/3-02SHA.html
Dimensions comprehend known objects, contain distinctions, and hence are not attributes of known objects, but of the knowing subject. I connect dimensions with Whitehead’s subjective forms.|
Space-time continuums are simply connected frames of reference (connected to an ontological theory of reference wherein the first distinction is pure subjectivity, self-reference), notions of contents (programming objects, objects of consciousness) are connected by the logical inference (by George!) of the all-comprehending frame (polycontexturality) and hence constitute logical domains, which is precisely what Gotthard Gunther meant by introducing the term “contexture” in his thesis of “polycontexturality” as abstract life, pure subjectivity. So continuums are contextures (logical domains) because all connection is governed by the “laws of frame,” the same “Laws of Form” calculi (in fact, George Spencer-Brown calls the frame the “unmarked cross,” which is found to be in the unmarked state, if we objectify our subjectivity (and hence reify or un-reify depending on one’s reality thesis).). Having connected continuums and contextures in that context (as it is in my intuition), we can move on to more peculiar attributes of space and time.
Time, in the most fundamental sense, is not only the fourth dimension with which we are familiar
The Epochal Theory of Time (James and Whitehead) may be a thesis working on an intuition that temporal consensus (in Whitehead’s case, of subjective forms) is specific to one’s “cosmic epoch.” Having stated that time is not only the familiar fourth dimension of our experience, we can ask “what else?” I suggest, first of all, that time is the highest dimension of experience, since it is where consciousness runs along rather than through. In a two-dimensional space, as events pass, so pass planes of construction. In a one-dimensional space, events discard previous states of lines, throughout the motion of points and segments. George Spencer-Brown’s less-exclusive definition of time is “a one-way blindness” in reference to a less-exclusive “sight,” which is more fundamental than our familiar vision. In this sense of sight, I call formless subjectivity “sight without light,” an infinitesimal point of reference, self-indicating, but abstracted from the forms it traces in every act of drawing distinctions.
We Take as Given
by George Spencer-Brown
We take as given
The idea of a distinction
And that one cannot
Make an indication
Without drawing a distinction.
We take therefore
The form of distinction
For the form.
The form we take to
The idea] consists in seeing the universe as a language, a script. But it is a language in unending movement and change: each sentence breeds another sentence, each says something which is always different and yet says the same thing....The metaphor which consists in seeing the universe as a book is very ancient and appears also in the last canto of Dante's Paradise...
In that abyss I saw how love held bound
Into one volume all the leaves whose flight
Is scattered through the universe around;
How substance, accident and mode unite
Fused, so to speak, together, in such wise
That this I tell of is one simple light.
The pluralities of the world--leaves blown here and there--come to rest together in the sacred book; substance and accident in the end are joined. Everything is a reflection of that unity, not excluding the words of the poet who names it. In the next tercet, the union of substance and accident is presented as a knot, and this knot is the universal form enclosing all forms. This knot is the hieroglyph of divine love.
[Paz, Children, pp. 71, 75. This famous phrase we have referred to above: as Dante says in Canto XXXIII, 91: La forma universal di questo nodo...("The universal form of this knot..." or less precisely, "The form that knits the whole world....").]
THE FIFTH CROSSING
James Keys, poet, polymath, and alter ego of the mathematician G. Spencer Brown, in a profound footnote, rehearses the process of this--or any other--general program of Creation. He counts with technical precision the steps from the Void; but to follow his count it is essential to distinguish between cardinal and ordinal numbers--and this awareness has become very muddled by popular misconstructions and by the inattention of educators. In one part of his extensive comments, Keys outlines a rectification of the conventional archetypal sequence while he associates the formal, mathematical states with certain historical and cultural symbolic representations of them, as in with Buddha-states of the Tibetan cosmogony, or the Persons of the Trinity in Christian tradition.
The story of creation can of course be protracted indefinitely. To cut a long story short, it turns out that there are five orders (or "levels") of eternity, four of which are existent (although not of course materially existent, this comes later) and one which is non-existent.The non-existent order is of course the inmost, the one the Greeks called the Empyrean. In the mathematics of the eternal structure the five orders are plainly distinguishable, and it is a fact of some interest that the early Greek explorers, who were not so well equipped mathematically as we are today, nevertheless confirmed, from observation alone, that the number of eternal regions or "heavens" stands at five.
At the next level, travelling outwards from within, an extraordinary thing happens. As we come into the sixth level (i.e. the fifth order [Order number Five], recollecting that the first level is of order zero) by crossing the fifth "veil"--mathematically speaking a "veil" is crossed when we devise an "outer" structure that embodies the "rules" of the structure next within--when we cross this fifth veil, a strange thing happens. We find that we cannot in fact cross it (i.e. it is mathematically impossible to do so) without creating time.
The time we create first, like the first space [given the cardinal number One], is much more primitive and less differentiated than what we know in physical existence. The time we set our watches by is actually the third time. The first time is much less sophisticated. Just as the regions of the first space have no size, so the intervals of the first time have no duration. This doesn't mean, as it might suggest in physical time, that the intervals are very short, so short that they vanish. It means simply that they are neither short nor long, because duration is not yet a quality that has been introduced into the system. For the same reason, all the heavenly states, although plainly distinguishable from one another, are in reality neither large nor small, neither close together nor far apart.
Everything reflects in everything else, and the peculiar and fundamental property of the fifth order of being reflects itself all over the universe, both at the physical and metaphysical levels. An interesting reflexion of it in mathematics is the fact that equations up to and including the fourth degree can be solved with algebraic formulae. Beyond this a runaway condition takes over making it impossible to produce a formula to solve equations of the fifth or higher degrees. A similar "runaway" condition applies, as we shall see in a moment, when we cross the fifth "veil" outwards into the first time.
It requires only a moment's consideration to see that what we call time is in fact a one-way blindness, the blind side being called "the future." Once we proceed into any time, no matter how primitive, we come out of heaven, i.e. out of eternity, out of the region where there is no blindness and where, therefore, in any part of it, we can still see the whole. And as we proceed further and further out into each successive and less primitive time and space, our blindness at each crossing is recompounded. It is thus easy to come out, hard to find one's way back in.
[James Keys, Only Two Can Play This Game, Julian Press, New York (1972), footnote No. 1, pp. 123 ff.]
Although the world of AI (artificial intelligence) and the theoretical branch of computer design in general have been slow to grasp it, this grand iconic image offers a potentially rewarding tool and perhaps a clue for solving some of the complexities of parallel programming. In new models, simultaneous (parallel) processing transcends lineal tree logic, yet in designs for new-genereation supercomputers the requirements of physical proximity are increasingly difficult to tolerate as constraints on the speed of information processing. The key lies in our understanding the architecture of heaven, or eternity. The necessary arrangement of the heavenly or eternal realms (with a paradigmatic five-steps-from-the-void) can indeed be seen, but not while retaining our conventional attachments to habitual vision of the sort we find so useful in the everyday world. Given the special meanings of formal language, we might say of this empyrean exercise:
...to experience the world clearly, we must abandon existence to truth, truth to indication, indication to form, and form to void.
If we distinguish anything at all, then "all this"--including in the end the physical universe--is how it must eventually appear. In short, what I prove is that all universes, whatever their contents, are constructed according to the same formal principles.
[G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form, p. 101. Keys, Only Two Can Play This Game, p. 110.]
These principles can be illustrated by the formal steps that must be taken ("all-at-once") in the orders of creation. This structure
corresponds to the void, the form, the axioms which see the form...Then you get the arithmetic, which is seeing what becomes of the axioms. And then you be it to do it, and in being it and doing it you find that, being and doing, you see the generalities of it, and that is the algebra. And while you are seeing you notice you have got equations...and suddenly you decide: "Aha! Supposing what it equals goes back into what it comes from?" Now you have generated time and matter all at once. There can be no matter without time. Time and matter come simultaneously. But this is the first matter in which the orders are counted, and it's called the "crystalline heaven," but it is not, really, a heaven.
In the construction of matter, all that happens is that we create the temporal and the material together by imagining that the outside feeds back into the inside. We then have a succession of marked and unmarked states generated by an oscillator function...Once you are in time, everything is a vibration.
[Keys, AUM Conference Transcript, pp. 96, 104, 106, 108.]
In the context of some brief reviews, James Keys drew parallels between these formal states or relationships and various literary, religious and artistic expressions, including Dante, the Gospel accord-ing to Thomas, and the author of The Divine Names, Dionysius the Areopagite, the Early Christian mystic to whom (mistakenly) St. Denis, the first Gothic church in the Ile-de-France was dedicated in 1144.
The secret sayings of Jesus of Nazareth, many of them so much deeper and stronger than what we find in the canonical gospels as to make it a different order of book. For example, it says much more clearly (gives an exact recipe, in fact) what you actually have to do to enter eternity. [In The Divine Names] the parallel accounts of the emergence of time, i.e. the statements of what we have to do to construct an element that doesn't exist in any of the five orders of eternity. We attempt to recount, in other words, what are the essential magic spells for creating a temporal existence, just as books such as the Gospel of Thomas aim to give the essential magic whereby these spells may be reversed.
[Keys, Only Two Can Play This Game, pp. 104, 108.]
In this order of complexity, this space we enter following the fifth crossing from the void, we discover--we are for the first time able to imagine--those entities commonly called numbers. They exist in what has been called the crystalline heaven, which is Order number Five (counting from the void as "zero"); that order is:
with the first time...what is called the astral plane in magic. It is the last of the material existences. Its structure is transparent and crystalline. In the middle ages it was projected out and called the crystalline heaven, although it is not, technically, an eternal region. It is where the eternal regions are first plotted and counted, for there are no numbers in eternity itself. You cannot count without time. When we proceed from here into the heavens themselves, we lose all numbers in a blinding flash as we return through the fifth veil into the outer heaven. From here on, if we are to survey what we see mathematically, we have to use Boolean elements, which are not numerical.
[Numbers] nevertheless, do exist. But not in the physical universe...Common arithmetic for university purposes, which for a less vulgar name is called the Theory of Numbers, one of the most beautiful sciences in all of mathematics, is the science of the individuality of numbers. A number theorist knows each number in its individuality. He knows about the relationships it forms, and so on, as an individual, as a constant. An algebraist is not interested in the individuality of numbers; he is interested in the generality of numbers. He is more interested in the sociology of numbers...he is not interested in individuals at all.
[Keys, Only Two, p. 134 f.; AUM Conference transcript, pp. 43, 45.]
Previously we sought to provide a link to certain basic information about number with our reference to Warren Sturgis McCulloch's essay "What Is a Number, that a Man May Know It, and a Man, that He May Know a Number?" Here, we justify our methodological use of number by telling where we may find a number and how to count it, literally, digitally. In one of the easiest ways to demonstrate this count:
Hold the palm of one hand in front of your face.
With the index finger of the other hand, count off the states or orders of eternity, beginning with your thumb.
Call the thumb, "Order Zero" (though it is the FIRST counted!)
Count the gap (or "valley") between the thumb and the adjacent index finger stands for the first crossing.
Call the index finger "Order One," which stands for the Form.
Then count the next interdigital gap as the second crossing.
Call middle finger "Order Two," the Axioms.
Then count the next gap as the third crossing.Call the ring finger "Order Three," the Arithmetic.Then count the next gap as the fourth crossing.
Call the little finger "Order Four," the Primary Algebra.
THEN count the fifth crossing, which, you see, is different from all the others, and not a gap or a valley at all because you can go past the wrist, all the way around the palm of your hand and return to your thumb. In the next state after the fifth crossing, "Order Five," the Algebra may contain equations of the second degree.
(1 comment | comment on this)
|Sunday, May 29th, 2005|
12:18 pm - Singularity Studies Reader -
This post is fulfilling a promise to pablobastard, but it should prove beneficial to others as well.|
- "The Age of Intellectual Machines", Ray Kurzweil
- "The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence", Ray Kurzweil
- "Are We Spiritual Machines?: Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong AI", Jay Richards, et al
- "Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever", Ray Kurzweil & Terry Grossman
- "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology", Ray Kurzweil (September '05 release)
- "Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind", Hans Moravec
- "Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence", Hans Moravec
- "Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution", Eric Drexler et al
- "Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology", Eric Drexler
- "The Spike: How Our Lives are Being Transformed by Rapidly Advancing Technologies", Damien Broderick
- "The Last Mortal Generation: How Science Will Alter Our Lives in the 21st Century", Damien Broderick
- "The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems", Fritjof Capra
- "The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Biological, Cognitive and Social Dimensions of Life Into a Science of Sustainability", Fritjof Capra
- "Belonging to the Universe: Explorations on the Frontiers of Science and Spirituality", Fritjof Capra
- "The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture", Fritjof Capra
- "The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living", Fritjof Capra
- "Are You a Transhuman?: Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World", FM-2030
- "Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us", Rodney Brooks
- "The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics", Roger Penrose
- "Cyborg Citizen: Politics in the Posthuman Age", Chris Gray
- "Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence", Andy Clark
- "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Thomas Kuhn
- "Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future", James Hughes
- "Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future", Gregory Stock
- "Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science", Mihail Roco & William Bainbridge (eds)
- "More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement", Ramez Naam
- "The Next Fifty Years: Science in the First Half of the Twenty-first Century", John Brockman (ed)
- "Arguing AI: The Battle for Twenty-first Century Science", Sam Williams
- "A Brief History of Tomorrow", Jonathan Margolis
- "The Scientific Conquest of Death", Immortality Institute
- "Robo Sapiens: Evolution of a New Species", Peter Menzel & Faith D'Aluisio
- "On Intelligence", Jeff Hawkins
- "Darwin Among Machines: The Evolution of Global Intelligence", George Dyson
- "When Things Start to Think", Neil Gershenfeld
- "FAB: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop: From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication", Neil Gershenfeld
- "The Millenial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps", Marshall Savage
- "Heaven in a Chip: Fuzzy Visions of Society and Science in the Digital Age", Bart Kosko
- "Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics and Artificial Intelligence will Transform Our World", Douglas Mulhall
- "Beyond Humanity: Cyberevolution and Future Minds", Gregory Paul, Earl Cox
- "Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition: Science Slightly Over the Edge", Ed Regis
That should keep folks busy.
I am not inclined to refer books that I haven't read, but I haven't read all these. I've probably read about 90% of them, and the others I've either got on my wish list or have been considering.
This list is obviously still in development. If readers have additional texts to recommend, I'll include it in edits, with the appropriate disclaimer. Thus far I've only included non-fiction works.
"Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population." - Albert Einstein
cross-posted: forward_looking, futuretech, phil_of_science, singularity_now, tessier_ashpool, the_quickening, the_robots, transhumanist.
current mood: awake
(comment on this)
|Saturday, February 19th, 2005|
1:28 am - Consequences of The Unknowable
Consequences of Unkowability: Subjectivity Without Knowledge; Where Nothing is Rationed.|
O. -Order Zerom, Zeroness, Chaos, White Noise,
Transdisciplinary Nomenclature: The Unknowable, Hetero-reference, Loss
Pure Objectivity = Profundity = Love
A. Axiomless Abstraction: Profundity
composed conversion: Paradox - Subjectivity
B. Axiological Abstraction: Universion, Subjectivity, Trinity or Triplicity of Divinity, Marked state, The Parameter
A logical domain can be discerned relatively as a communicative contexture or pattern of junctions of factions and functions (in connexus) whence counted by a Principal or Count (ruling and measuring subjective forms) computes as much as confines a creature by means of praxis or dimensionality. From such angels (algebraic factions and function) subjectivity is manifest as inspiration of a living present The creatures define a present world of scene and stage created contextually and concreted constructurally.
I. -Order One, Oneness
Transdisciplinary Nomenclature: Unity, Self-Reference, Identification,
Pure Subjectivity = Subjectivity = Life
A. Axiomless Abstraction: Subjectivity
configured composition: Paradigm - Subjective forms and Eternal objects
B. Axiological Abstraction: Profundity, Hetero-reference, The Unknowable, Unmarked space, The Axiom
An organism or organization can be concerned relevantly within a community of nations and notions
This is a corpus since it unifies an authorative body of text into the terminological or teleological subjective orgasm of peak experience, conceptual seeds of utmost potency paving allegorical forests and uncharted wilderness of novel creatures and natures. Colloquial human spirituality is asymmetrical and hence not attractive enough for other organisms to commune with. From brids, bees, heards, seas, every natural finnished product, and far more supernatural principles primordial (elementals; actually elementalities, mathematical tensors, angels) creatures. Human spirituality is underdeveloped in its "in-touch" feelings, dominant are "in-fomed and "in-told" thoughts. Relativity is far more developed than relevancy. The eternal object of culture is community, as the eternal object of life is love, so external is just a bad word.
A paradise is a cog in God, for God doesn't think or cognize, but is in the cog without the ignition since dynamics are a temporeal perversion of the ever-present God given. Creatures-- captured instances of a creator-- are geared up and such is their general predicament. But each cog is an infinitesimal point of reference, the gear being the rationally ["ratio (half diameter)-nally-deter (indicative) -mined (dug)"] determined sphere or ground of reference whose music is the iterative nature (natural process) of the ground; where the gears are characters, the corpus is an ego or communicative subjective form. The cognizing ego-form (egoic subjective form) operates contextually (by its sense of consense) and defines textually. The world of the ego is the social scene constructed by the consensual definition of the interest
(4 comments | comment on this)