Showing posts with label A & ~A. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A & ~A. Show all posts
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Monday, March 6, 2017
Dredging Up the Dead
The following two pieces were written in October and September of 2002 (respectively). They were written in response to someone on a forum I used to partake in and s/he was inquiring into Carl Jung's Septem Sermones ad Mortuos. I dredged these up because someone else recently quoted the second paragraph of Sermo I on G+ and I thought: ah, Jung, I like that--where's it from (i.e., I did not recognize it as the second paragraph of Sermo I)? So I Googled it and found I had already encountered it before. Y'know how it is with memory, or, at least, I know how it is with my memory, heh. Anyway, simply thought I'd reacquaint myself with both Jung's text and my own and figured I might as well collect it here on Drifting Labyrinths.
The first piece is an attempt at answering the forum member's question:
What
are your thoughts on the text?
And the second piece is an attempt at answering a different question this person had asked:
What do people think of Jung's concept that alchemy and gnosticism
formed a kind of unconscious to the institutional relgions that labelled
such beliefs and preactises as heretical?
Here is the text for Septem Sermones ad Mortuos in case you'd like to read it for yourself.
*******
First Piece
Attempting answers (complement: questions; combination: analysis) at ancient analogies.
First thoughts roll with sevens. Seven days in a week, seven classical planets (recall the celestial bodies which circled round a stationary earth), lucky seven, The Chariot, seven major stages in the alchemical process: calcination, putrefaction, solution, distillation, conjunction, sublimation, and philosophic congelation. And of course, our seven sermons.
The Chariot is driven by the light and the dark engines—it is the two forces which power the single vehicle. If we can extract anything from Sermo I, it is a discussion of opposites, but on several layers. We are told that “[t]he pairs of opposites are qualities of the plemora which are not, because each balance each.” Above this statement we are shown eleven pairs of opposites as examples of the binary pairings which negate one another in the plemora. We will now list these as eleven unordered pairs: {effective, ineffective}, {fullness, emptiness}, {living, dead}, {difference, sameness}, {light, dark}, {hot, cold}, {force, matter}, {time, space}, {good, evil}, {beautiful, ugly}, {one, many}. It is these and other pairings that exist as one and the same thing in the plemora; that is to say, they don’t exist in the plemora because it of itself has no qualities. So we get a further pairing of {existence, non-existence} (which may seem similar, but perhaps not readily identical to {living, dead}), as a non/quality (and here we note the ‘/’ is used to indicate, in this case, both the absence and presence of a quality) of the plemora. We might want to recognize that some of Jung’s work focuses on the pairing {internal, external} with respect to individual; in different words, Jung looks at connections between a person’s psyche and the manifest world.
E.E. Rehmus informs us that the plemora itself is the Gnostic divine being, it is the Universal Soul. He goes on to note that all aeons emanate from it. In a Jungian sense, we might consider this to be the archetype of the Self, and from the Self, we derive selves—personal aeons or the aeon of an individual—in the small. In Sermo I, we are told that the plemora is nothingness and fullness, and I recall from a lecture on Jung that he felt the Self was also empty, yet contained every other archetype and, in this sense, is full. We are also told, in the Sermo, many other contrary things about the plemora. In particular, we are informed that we are not part of the plemora, that “we are from the plemora infinitely removed,” because to be a distinct creature is to be distinct form the other, and in specific, distinct form this Universal Soul, and in this Soul there is no distinction; however, we are also told that “because we are parts of the plemora, the plemora is also in us.” So we see here a further pairing of {plemora, individual} or, perhaps more in a Jungian flavour {other, self}. What we can begin to see is that the plemora and the individual, or the self and the other, share an identity in so far as each pairing, in their non/existence in the plemora, become one thing—we’ve denoted this one object by borrowing from set theoretic notation: the unordered binary pairing {x, y}—which is nothing (but of course, everything = nothing). We can note a numeric example of this pair as framed in computational language: {1, 0}.
More important to notice is that “the plemora is both the beginning and end of the created beings,” and that “the plemora prevadeth altogether, yet hath created being no share thereof.” So here we have further pairings of contraries giving rise to our existence, and yet, canceling out that existence. We are told that the plemora has not created being, but yet, it is the end and beginning of existence, and that it is ubiquitous throughout existence. In the pattern of thought being followed, the plemora has {nothing, everything} to do with non/existence. Or in different, but unsurprising words, the plemora is all and it is nothing, that we are both the plemora itself and entirely distinct from it. It is in our being—our existence—that we continue and create distinction: “[w]hen we distinguish qualities of the plemora, we are speaking from the ground of our own distinctiveness and concerning our own distinctiveness.” Thus, since the plemora is empty and possesses no qualities, which is to say that it is full and posses all qualities, it is we who ‘pull out’ (‘push in’?) the pairings, and we who further divide the elements of the pairings—one here, and one over there. Put differently, it is we who create things, it is we who are the blind demiurges that shape the world, it is we who are the plemora. But if we weren’t blind and could see this in its entirety (its eternity), then this “would mean self-dissolution,” and “[t]herein both thinking and being cease.” Perhaps this would be the end (beginning?) of the Jungian goal: full integration of the shadow into the personality.
But still, there is nothing that “standeth [as] something fixed, or in some way established from the beginning.” So we speak of “qualities of the plemora which are not.” In other words, even our groupings of these pairs into units, and then into non/existence stemming from, into, through, an empty and full plemora is still creating distinction, it is still our thoughts about the plemora, and thus, “we have said nothing concerning the plemora.” “What is changeable” is the shifting thoughts and experiences by which, even in recognizing an x and its contrary y as an {x, y}, and then negating this in the plemora—which is ourselves, we generate the individual as “fixed and certain…or even as a quality itself.” “The plemora is rent in us”: there appears to be a necessity of something as it exists in the tension between everything and nothing, where {nothing, everything} is {infinite, eternal}, and yet, not that at all. In other words, we are thinking of a way, or a being told ways in which we can think of the unthinkable, by which we can ascertain something outside of our experience. Put differently still, the Sermo is both conditioning, reconditioning, and unconditioning our ways of thinking with respect to ultimate reality: it offers us tools that work on our neurosemantic interpretations of reality, and in effect, tells us at one and the same time that ultimate reality—here framed as the plemora—is both thinkable and unthinkable, knowable and unknowable, that from which our experience derives, but also that which has nothing to do with our experience. In short, it seems a jarring interplay between contraries which may serve to free the reader (or hearer) from his or her own private (or not so private) dogmas and fundamentalisms: nothing is true, everything is possible (?).
I would like to note that there is further binary pairings which can be built from basic units of pairs (this again borrows from set theory). We can see that what is asserted about the plemora can be modeled in the following way: {{plemora, {x, y}}, {not plemora, {x, y}}}. This pairing might shed some light on the “deep structure” of the first Sermo: the plemora is full of all possible binary pairings where these pairings are self-negating (balance each other out—cancel or annul one and other), and the plemora has nothing to do with any possible binary pairings. In a yet larger scope we might construct the following binary pairing: {{{plemora, individual}, {x, y}}, {{not plemora, individual}, {x, y}}}, or perhaps some mixture thereof.
To turn briefly to the closing remarks of the opening Sermo, which concern “the striving after your own being.” Which appears to concern the resolution or dissolution of apparent opposites into complementary unities with respect to the identification of self with other, or with the plemora and the individual. It is suggested that the only real striving is that after our self, which I think Jung would agree with: we are, through our being in the world, seeking after that which we are, which, I think, might be seen as a manifestation of Self. What appears to be asserted is that it is our very thoughts and thought processes which move us a step away from being in what might be seen as purely experiential; that is, it is thought which serves to divide the pairings of complements into pairings of opposites, and this division is what separates self from other (leading, in heightened or more “crystalized” form to acute alienation), which in turn places us a step removed from the “isness” of unanalyzed experience. In different words, our interpretations are simply partial representations which further increase distinction, and the uninterpreted is the undifferentiated reality. In coming to “the right goal by virtue of [our] own being,” we might come to the identification of self with other or come to know the unknowable not through analysis or thought, but by the absence of these. In closing, I’d suggest that Sermo I is linked to the first step of alchemy, calcination, where we burn (or transform) the black into the white.
Variables Vibrate Vicariously.
First thoughts roll with sevens. Seven days in a week, seven classical planets (recall the celestial bodies which circled round a stationary earth), lucky seven, The Chariot, seven major stages in the alchemical process: calcination, putrefaction, solution, distillation, conjunction, sublimation, and philosophic congelation. And of course, our seven sermons.
The Chariot is driven by the light and the dark engines—it is the two forces which power the single vehicle. If we can extract anything from Sermo I, it is a discussion of opposites, but on several layers. We are told that “[t]he pairs of opposites are qualities of the plemora which are not, because each balance each.” Above this statement we are shown eleven pairs of opposites as examples of the binary pairings which negate one another in the plemora. We will now list these as eleven unordered pairs: {effective, ineffective}, {fullness, emptiness}, {living, dead}, {difference, sameness}, {light, dark}, {hot, cold}, {force, matter}, {time, space}, {good, evil}, {beautiful, ugly}, {one, many}. It is these and other pairings that exist as one and the same thing in the plemora; that is to say, they don’t exist in the plemora because it of itself has no qualities. So we get a further pairing of {existence, non-existence} (which may seem similar, but perhaps not readily identical to {living, dead}), as a non/quality (and here we note the ‘/’ is used to indicate, in this case, both the absence and presence of a quality) of the plemora. We might want to recognize that some of Jung’s work focuses on the pairing {internal, external} with respect to individual; in different words, Jung looks at connections between a person’s psyche and the manifest world.
E.E. Rehmus informs us that the plemora itself is the Gnostic divine being, it is the Universal Soul. He goes on to note that all aeons emanate from it. In a Jungian sense, we might consider this to be the archetype of the Self, and from the Self, we derive selves—personal aeons or the aeon of an individual—in the small. In Sermo I, we are told that the plemora is nothingness and fullness, and I recall from a lecture on Jung that he felt the Self was also empty, yet contained every other archetype and, in this sense, is full. We are also told, in the Sermo, many other contrary things about the plemora. In particular, we are informed that we are not part of the plemora, that “we are from the plemora infinitely removed,” because to be a distinct creature is to be distinct form the other, and in specific, distinct form this Universal Soul, and in this Soul there is no distinction; however, we are also told that “because we are parts of the plemora, the plemora is also in us.” So we see here a further pairing of {plemora, individual} or, perhaps more in a Jungian flavour {other, self}. What we can begin to see is that the plemora and the individual, or the self and the other, share an identity in so far as each pairing, in their non/existence in the plemora, become one thing—we’ve denoted this one object by borrowing from set theoretic notation: the unordered binary pairing {x, y}—which is nothing (but of course, everything = nothing). We can note a numeric example of this pair as framed in computational language: {1, 0}.
More important to notice is that “the plemora is both the beginning and end of the created beings,” and that “the plemora prevadeth altogether, yet hath created being no share thereof.” So here we have further pairings of contraries giving rise to our existence, and yet, canceling out that existence. We are told that the plemora has not created being, but yet, it is the end and beginning of existence, and that it is ubiquitous throughout existence. In the pattern of thought being followed, the plemora has {nothing, everything} to do with non/existence. Or in different, but unsurprising words, the plemora is all and it is nothing, that we are both the plemora itself and entirely distinct from it. It is in our being—our existence—that we continue and create distinction: “[w]hen we distinguish qualities of the plemora, we are speaking from the ground of our own distinctiveness and concerning our own distinctiveness.” Thus, since the plemora is empty and possesses no qualities, which is to say that it is full and posses all qualities, it is we who ‘pull out’ (‘push in’?) the pairings, and we who further divide the elements of the pairings—one here, and one over there. Put differently, it is we who create things, it is we who are the blind demiurges that shape the world, it is we who are the plemora. But if we weren’t blind and could see this in its entirety (its eternity), then this “would mean self-dissolution,” and “[t]herein both thinking and being cease.” Perhaps this would be the end (beginning?) of the Jungian goal: full integration of the shadow into the personality.
But still, there is nothing that “standeth [as] something fixed, or in some way established from the beginning.” So we speak of “qualities of the plemora which are not.” In other words, even our groupings of these pairs into units, and then into non/existence stemming from, into, through, an empty and full plemora is still creating distinction, it is still our thoughts about the plemora, and thus, “we have said nothing concerning the plemora.” “What is changeable” is the shifting thoughts and experiences by which, even in recognizing an x and its contrary y as an {x, y}, and then negating this in the plemora—which is ourselves, we generate the individual as “fixed and certain…or even as a quality itself.” “The plemora is rent in us”: there appears to be a necessity of something as it exists in the tension between everything and nothing, where {nothing, everything} is {infinite, eternal}, and yet, not that at all. In other words, we are thinking of a way, or a being told ways in which we can think of the unthinkable, by which we can ascertain something outside of our experience. Put differently still, the Sermo is both conditioning, reconditioning, and unconditioning our ways of thinking with respect to ultimate reality: it offers us tools that work on our neurosemantic interpretations of reality, and in effect, tells us at one and the same time that ultimate reality—here framed as the plemora—is both thinkable and unthinkable, knowable and unknowable, that from which our experience derives, but also that which has nothing to do with our experience. In short, it seems a jarring interplay between contraries which may serve to free the reader (or hearer) from his or her own private (or not so private) dogmas and fundamentalisms: nothing is true, everything is possible (?).
I would like to note that there is further binary pairings which can be built from basic units of pairs (this again borrows from set theory). We can see that what is asserted about the plemora can be modeled in the following way: {{plemora, {x, y}}, {not plemora, {x, y}}}. This pairing might shed some light on the “deep structure” of the first Sermo: the plemora is full of all possible binary pairings where these pairings are self-negating (balance each other out—cancel or annul one and other), and the plemora has nothing to do with any possible binary pairings. In a yet larger scope we might construct the following binary pairing: {{{plemora, individual}, {x, y}}, {{not plemora, individual}, {x, y}}}, or perhaps some mixture thereof.
To turn briefly to the closing remarks of the opening Sermo, which concern “the striving after your own being.” Which appears to concern the resolution or dissolution of apparent opposites into complementary unities with respect to the identification of self with other, or with the plemora and the individual. It is suggested that the only real striving is that after our self, which I think Jung would agree with: we are, through our being in the world, seeking after that which we are, which, I think, might be seen as a manifestation of Self. What appears to be asserted is that it is our very thoughts and thought processes which move us a step away from being in what might be seen as purely experiential; that is, it is thought which serves to divide the pairings of complements into pairings of opposites, and this division is what separates self from other (leading, in heightened or more “crystalized” form to acute alienation), which in turn places us a step removed from the “isness” of unanalyzed experience. In different words, our interpretations are simply partial representations which further increase distinction, and the uninterpreted is the undifferentiated reality. In coming to “the right goal by virtue of [our] own being,” we might come to the identification of self with other or come to know the unknowable not through analysis or thought, but by the absence of these. In closing, I’d suggest that Sermo I is linked to the first step of alchemy, calcination, where we burn (or transform) the black into the white.
Variables Vibrate Vicariously.
*******
Second Piece
One of the things I have appreciated about Jung’s thought regarding
institutionalized religion is how it can often become a barrier to
promoting a personal religious experience. If I recall correctly, Jung
felt that what often occurred in the case of an organized religion was
that someone at some point in time, in some context, had some sort of
revelatory, mystical, or otherwise transcendent contact with the
‘divine’. If the person who had this experience was moved to attempt to
describe it to others, and if others were significantly affected by this
person’s relation of the experience, then the budding of a new
religious movement could now begin.
What occurs at this point is the codification of the details of the experience. Moreover, the personal religious experience of a single individual now becomes the paradigmatic focal point and touch stone for people who might want to recreate such an experience for themselves. However, as the codification becomes dogma and doctrine, and as the experience of one person becomes structured into a organization, we immediately get issues of power and authority. Who is it that understands what that original experience was really about? We get the rise of those who will now become the interpreters and mediators between the source of some other individual’s experience, and the everyday lives of ordinary people. That is, we get, in an organized religion, those who are, by their position in the power structure, allowed to read scripture (or such) in such a way that they are the ones who will interpret this record of the events of a single individual for other people. They become the ones who will lead the flock (so to speak).
Now, it seems to me that alchemy is the personal pursuit of an encounter with the divine. It is the seeking after Hermes’ Bird, the Philosopher’s Stone (and many other names), but this is nothing other than the understanding that the individual is right there with God in creating the world. As Joderowsky frames it in The Holy Mountain, it is turning your excrement into gold. In existentialist terms, it is deciding the meaning and direction of your life without fear or angst in the face of the idea that there is no meaning or direction. In a sense, the alchemical pursuit is the unification of self and other, especially in terms of the mundane with the divine, or the particular with the universal. This entire pursuit is one that must be carried out by the individual alone, and not something that can be given or learned from someone else. I think that in traditional alchemy it was the alchemist alone who would mix the ingredients in the alembic, and it would be the alchemist alone that would supervise, observe, and participate in the growing of Hermes’ Tree. It seems to me that the idea here, in more Jungian terms, is that it is the individual who must turn his or her shadows into light, or integrate the shadows of his or her being into a whole individual. While people might be able to give guidance and what not, the life of any person is entirely in that person’s hands (whether he or she can admit this or not).
While I am not particularly well versed in Gnosticism, if I recall, one of the driving ideas is that the world was created by an evil demiurge, and that the real God was so far removed from this world that he or she had no contact with us, nor we with him or her. So let us put this into the context of what I’ve been spinning out so far. Alchemy is the individual quest for unification with the divine, for participation in the creation and transformation of the world. Gnosticism seems at least partially correct so far as contact with the divine is not an everyday part of most people’s lives, and that contact with the divine appears very difficult or might be impossible. So, if we have organized religion arising out of an individual’s encounter with the divine, then the individualized encounter was something unique, difficult, and not likely to be duplicated. Thus, we see how there might be elements of alchemy and Gnosticism providing the origins of an organized religion in so far as the origins are founded in an individual’s experience. As the experience itself becomes lost in the religion’s codification and increasing rigidness of formalization, the original experience which shares these elements of the alchemical pursuit and certain ideas pertaining to Gnosticism does become like the unconscious underpinnings of the institutional tradition.
At least part of the reason that such beliefs and interests in things like alchemy and Gnostic ideas become viewed as heretical is because these ideas would or could serve to promote in the individual a unique and difficult encounter with the divine for that individual. Such an encounter will likely be counter to some or all of the codified ways of the institution, and so, would work to undermine or at least question the authority of those “higher up” in the power structure. If everyone could promote his or her own encounter with God, then what would be the need for a church (in the traditional sense)?
So, in a sense, I agree with Jung that the institutionalization of an individual’s religious experience often seems to prevent others from having their own encounter with the divine. Such an encounter must be based upon, and stem from, those things which become labeled as heretical under the authority of a power structure, and this structure, paradoxically, owes its existence to these same heretical experiences, which become the “unconscious” (in the sense of unrecognized or forgotten) of that institution.
What occurs at this point is the codification of the details of the experience. Moreover, the personal religious experience of a single individual now becomes the paradigmatic focal point and touch stone for people who might want to recreate such an experience for themselves. However, as the codification becomes dogma and doctrine, and as the experience of one person becomes structured into a organization, we immediately get issues of power and authority. Who is it that understands what that original experience was really about? We get the rise of those who will now become the interpreters and mediators between the source of some other individual’s experience, and the everyday lives of ordinary people. That is, we get, in an organized religion, those who are, by their position in the power structure, allowed to read scripture (or such) in such a way that they are the ones who will interpret this record of the events of a single individual for other people. They become the ones who will lead the flock (so to speak).
Now, it seems to me that alchemy is the personal pursuit of an encounter with the divine. It is the seeking after Hermes’ Bird, the Philosopher’s Stone (and many other names), but this is nothing other than the understanding that the individual is right there with God in creating the world. As Joderowsky frames it in The Holy Mountain, it is turning your excrement into gold. In existentialist terms, it is deciding the meaning and direction of your life without fear or angst in the face of the idea that there is no meaning or direction. In a sense, the alchemical pursuit is the unification of self and other, especially in terms of the mundane with the divine, or the particular with the universal. This entire pursuit is one that must be carried out by the individual alone, and not something that can be given or learned from someone else. I think that in traditional alchemy it was the alchemist alone who would mix the ingredients in the alembic, and it would be the alchemist alone that would supervise, observe, and participate in the growing of Hermes’ Tree. It seems to me that the idea here, in more Jungian terms, is that it is the individual who must turn his or her shadows into light, or integrate the shadows of his or her being into a whole individual. While people might be able to give guidance and what not, the life of any person is entirely in that person’s hands (whether he or she can admit this or not).
While I am not particularly well versed in Gnosticism, if I recall, one of the driving ideas is that the world was created by an evil demiurge, and that the real God was so far removed from this world that he or she had no contact with us, nor we with him or her. So let us put this into the context of what I’ve been spinning out so far. Alchemy is the individual quest for unification with the divine, for participation in the creation and transformation of the world. Gnosticism seems at least partially correct so far as contact with the divine is not an everyday part of most people’s lives, and that contact with the divine appears very difficult or might be impossible. So, if we have organized religion arising out of an individual’s encounter with the divine, then the individualized encounter was something unique, difficult, and not likely to be duplicated. Thus, we see how there might be elements of alchemy and Gnosticism providing the origins of an organized religion in so far as the origins are founded in an individual’s experience. As the experience itself becomes lost in the religion’s codification and increasing rigidness of formalization, the original experience which shares these elements of the alchemical pursuit and certain ideas pertaining to Gnosticism does become like the unconscious underpinnings of the institutional tradition.
At least part of the reason that such beliefs and interests in things like alchemy and Gnostic ideas become viewed as heretical is because these ideas would or could serve to promote in the individual a unique and difficult encounter with the divine for that individual. Such an encounter will likely be counter to some or all of the codified ways of the institution, and so, would work to undermine or at least question the authority of those “higher up” in the power structure. If everyone could promote his or her own encounter with God, then what would be the need for a church (in the traditional sense)?
So, in a sense, I agree with Jung that the institutionalization of an individual’s religious experience often seems to prevent others from having their own encounter with the divine. Such an encounter must be based upon, and stem from, those things which become labeled as heretical under the authority of a power structure, and this structure, paradoxically, owes its existence to these same heretical experiences, which become the “unconscious” (in the sense of unrecognized or forgotten) of that institution.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
On the Holographic Principle and the Fractal Model of the Universe
This is a response prompted by +rare avis asking if I had seen this article and was asked in this post. I am posting my response to Drifting Labyrinths for the sake of posterity.
No, I haven't seen this particular article yet, but it seems to misrepresent the "holographic principle," which is common in popular articles on the matter. The Holographic Principle does not say that we "live in a hologram." And every time someone says this it makes baby Jesus cry and I throw up--just a little--in my mouth.
The "holographic principle" is defined as: ...a mathematical principle that the total information contained in a volume of space corresponds to an equal amount of information contained on the boundary of that space (source).
Here's a thing: we seem to live in at least a four dimensional universe: the three spatial dimensions that define things with volume + the time dimension = spacetime (of Relativity) = 4 dimensions.
So, there is a sense in which our experiences are occurring in a "fractal dimension" where a "fractal dimension" is defined as: a measure of how "complicated" a self-similar figure is. In a rough sense, it measures "how many points" lie in a given set. A plane is "larger" than a line, while S sits somewhere in between these two sets (source).
Put differently, a "fractal dimension" is not a whole number but some number between two whole numbers. The plane in the above definition has 2 dimensions, and the line is described in a single dimension, and the fractal dimension of the set of points that define the fractal S in that plane is greater than 1 but less than 2.
So, similarly, our experience of time can be seen as occurring on the boundary of a fractal that exists in a four dimensional space. So, the fractal dimension, then, is greater than 3 but less than 4, and that is kind of like our experience of the possibly four dimensions of spacetime: we readily experience the 3 dimensions of volume in their completeness (as whole numbers, say) but not so with the fourth dimension of time, which we only experience in increments--as some fraction of the whole--and, really, only one "point" at a time.
So, what the "holographic principle" implies in such a model, is that the information in the four dimensional volume of spacetime can be encoded on the surface of that volume, and this surface is the 3 dimensions of volume we readily experience + the "partial" experience of the fourth dimension of time because existence, as is my conjecture, happens on the fractal boundary of a n-dimensional volume (in this case we are discussing, n = 4).
As I put forward months ago (but stated somewhat improperly at the time with respect to the current experiment to test for such a property) and now restated here with more precision and clarity:
The fractal model of the universe is a possible explanation of the structure of the universe if and only if the holographic principle is a property of our universe.
That is a prediction of the model, in other words, and one that can be verified scientifically by experiment.
Put differently, by my understanding of the fractal model that I am endorsing as a possible model of the structure of the universe this model necessarily requires that the holographic principle be true of our universe, or so it seems to me.
And this is precisely because the experiences that we have seem to be of a fractal dimension that is greater than 3 but less than 4 (if we posit the universe is a 4d structure). In other words, we exist on or within the lesser space that describes the surface or boundary of a larger volume, and in order to have experiences that are derived from that larger volume the information contained in that volume must be available on its surface, which is what the holographic principle says.
Put differently still, in a "block universe" conception of our universe (to use a current model that "fits" the following description), the whole universe already exists as whole and complete--from beginning to end--and is a four dimensional object, which is to say a volume inscribed in four dimensional spacetime. But we don't experience that object and its volume directly. We experience parts of the total information that the 4d volume contains, and we do so exactly because such information is available in total on the greater than 3 but less than 4 fractal "surface" of this 4d volume. That is our experience of the total information as divided in time and is part of the turbulent boundary of the fractal.
A little differently still, the fractal itself is "timeless" and it is defined exactly because it is all possible manifestation of or in the total 4D universe in contrast to all the other possible manifestations that did not occur, and the boundary between these two sets of points define the reality of our experiences: it is the turbulent boundary of a fractal or can be adequately modeled that way, anyway. All the information of the universe is found in that 4D volume and the fractal boundary that is the surface of that volume mirrors this information as the boundary goes towards infinity--which is to say takes on a sort of volume itself that is greater than 3 and less than 4, but is always approaching 4.
It is interesting, in a synchronicity sort of way, for the following reason:
I believe this model--or one very much like it--will become part of a future scientific understanding of our universe. This is also a prediction, but not a scientific one--it is an intuitive prediction--although this prediction will be shown true or false in time, so it is a "testable" prediction. I am not aware of anyone who has constructed a similar model as this one, but I am sure it is coming. It only makes sense.
Now, earlier tonight I was on the telephone with an old friend, +Lisa Mizeri, and we hadn't talked for awhile, so we were catching up on all sorts of things, and I mentioned that since I did not get accepted into the Masters of Philosophy program here at the University of Victoria that I was seriously considering starting a BSc in physics.
Part of our earlier conversation was about how, at least in theory, if we live in some odd folding 4D "hyperwhatever" type shape, then we ought to be able to do things, as was her suggestion, like "hiding rows in Excel." We were talking specifically about making travel easier, and in particular travel across Canada. She was saying we should just be able to "click" and hide Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, and then it would be easier to get from BC, where I live, to Quebec where she and her family currently live. And then we'd simply "click" again, and those provinces would all be revealed once again.
Later, in the conversation, when I mentioned, among other things, that I might go do this BSc in physics, then I joked that perhaps I would figure out how to fold space in such a way that I could open my apartment door, step through it, and step into her and her family's apartment in Montreal and close the door behind me. I have not made it out their way for a real live visit and Montreal would be a pretty cool place to visit in addition to seeing my old friend.
Anyway, I think that an understanding of the universe in terms of a fractal model is going to be at least a step in that direction. And we were joking earlier about my having written a voluminous tome that would somehow survive into the future--as an actual bound book of paper pages--about my various "conjectures" about reality (some of which we discussed peppered throughout the conversation) that would turn out to be true, and folks, some of them anyway, would wear buttons or t-shirts (or whatever the future equivalent of such things would be) that read "Hydomako Was Right."
And of course we laughed about this. And I joked "What the fuck is a 'Hydomako'?" as I am sure most, if they were bothered to, would be prone to ask, heh.
Now, I think it is much more likely that some ingenious person already in the field of physics with a PhD will publish something that is very much like this model, and is more rigorous in terms of its formalization, that is, it will have equations that show such and such and the math will be present to justify the ideas. So people in the future will, if they do at all, wear buttons and t-shirts that say "[Ingenious Physicist with PhD's Name Here] Was Right."
So, I'd be lying if I said I didn't want my name attached to a revolutionary scientific idea. That would be awesome. I think this or a similar fractal model is that revolutionary scientific idea or at least part of it, but I am not sure if I will end up being the one to publish that more rigorous and mathematically sound paper that sparks or is part of such a revolution. I think by the time I earn a PhD in physics (at least five to seven years and maybe more, if my plan to earn a PhD in Philosophy is any indicator of success (going on seventeen years now and still sitting pretty with a BA), yup)--if indeed I ever accomplish such an endeavor--well, someone is likely going to write that paper before I do.
On the other hand, it is more about the idea--this idea, I feel, needs to get out there--and if I have this idea, others do too because that is how ideas and the "collective consciousness" works. So, if you have this idea too, dear reader, and are in a position to make it more rigorous and have also been prompted by some of my "rough work," then, hey, give me a footnote or something, ok?
See also this thread for further work on the fractal model or at least further explication of it in terms of the A & ~A "theory" about the world. With thanks to +sreejith s, of course.
For a whole lot more on A & ~A see my philosophy website.
And if you really want the hardcore stuff, then read this.
No, I haven't seen this particular article yet, but it seems to misrepresent the "holographic principle," which is common in popular articles on the matter. The Holographic Principle does not say that we "live in a hologram." And every time someone says this it makes baby Jesus cry and I throw up--just a little--in my mouth.
The "holographic principle" is defined as: ...a mathematical principle that the total information contained in a volume of space corresponds to an equal amount of information contained on the boundary of that space (source).
Here's a thing: we seem to live in at least a four dimensional universe: the three spatial dimensions that define things with volume + the time dimension = spacetime (of Relativity) = 4 dimensions.
So, there is a sense in which our experiences are occurring in a "fractal dimension" where a "fractal dimension" is defined as: a measure of how "complicated" a self-similar figure is. In a rough sense, it measures "how many points" lie in a given set. A plane is "larger" than a line, while S sits somewhere in between these two sets (source).
Put differently, a "fractal dimension" is not a whole number but some number between two whole numbers. The plane in the above definition has 2 dimensions, and the line is described in a single dimension, and the fractal dimension of the set of points that define the fractal S in that plane is greater than 1 but less than 2.
So, similarly, our experience of time can be seen as occurring on the boundary of a fractal that exists in a four dimensional space. So, the fractal dimension, then, is greater than 3 but less than 4, and that is kind of like our experience of the possibly four dimensions of spacetime: we readily experience the 3 dimensions of volume in their completeness (as whole numbers, say) but not so with the fourth dimension of time, which we only experience in increments--as some fraction of the whole--and, really, only one "point" at a time.
So, what the "holographic principle" implies in such a model, is that the information in the four dimensional volume of spacetime can be encoded on the surface of that volume, and this surface is the 3 dimensions of volume we readily experience + the "partial" experience of the fourth dimension of time because existence, as is my conjecture, happens on the fractal boundary of a n-dimensional volume (in this case we are discussing, n = 4).
As I put forward months ago (but stated somewhat improperly at the time with respect to the current experiment to test for such a property) and now restated here with more precision and clarity:
The fractal model of the universe is a possible explanation of the structure of the universe if and only if the holographic principle is a property of our universe.
That is a prediction of the model, in other words, and one that can be verified scientifically by experiment.
Put differently, by my understanding of the fractal model that I am endorsing as a possible model of the structure of the universe this model necessarily requires that the holographic principle be true of our universe, or so it seems to me.
And this is precisely because the experiences that we have seem to be of a fractal dimension that is greater than 3 but less than 4 (if we posit the universe is a 4d structure). In other words, we exist on or within the lesser space that describes the surface or boundary of a larger volume, and in order to have experiences that are derived from that larger volume the information contained in that volume must be available on its surface, which is what the holographic principle says.
Put differently still, in a "block universe" conception of our universe (to use a current model that "fits" the following description), the whole universe already exists as whole and complete--from beginning to end--and is a four dimensional object, which is to say a volume inscribed in four dimensional spacetime. But we don't experience that object and its volume directly. We experience parts of the total information that the 4d volume contains, and we do so exactly because such information is available in total on the greater than 3 but less than 4 fractal "surface" of this 4d volume. That is our experience of the total information as divided in time and is part of the turbulent boundary of the fractal.
A little differently still, the fractal itself is "timeless" and it is defined exactly because it is all possible manifestation of or in the total 4D universe in contrast to all the other possible manifestations that did not occur, and the boundary between these two sets of points define the reality of our experiences: it is the turbulent boundary of a fractal or can be adequately modeled that way, anyway. All the information of the universe is found in that 4D volume and the fractal boundary that is the surface of that volume mirrors this information as the boundary goes towards infinity--which is to say takes on a sort of volume itself that is greater than 3 and less than 4, but is always approaching 4.
It is interesting, in a synchronicity sort of way, for the following reason:
I believe this model--or one very much like it--will become part of a future scientific understanding of our universe. This is also a prediction, but not a scientific one--it is an intuitive prediction--although this prediction will be shown true or false in time, so it is a "testable" prediction. I am not aware of anyone who has constructed a similar model as this one, but I am sure it is coming. It only makes sense.
Now, earlier tonight I was on the telephone with an old friend, +Lisa Mizeri, and we hadn't talked for awhile, so we were catching up on all sorts of things, and I mentioned that since I did not get accepted into the Masters of Philosophy program here at the University of Victoria that I was seriously considering starting a BSc in physics.
Part of our earlier conversation was about how, at least in theory, if we live in some odd folding 4D "hyperwhatever" type shape, then we ought to be able to do things, as was her suggestion, like "hiding rows in Excel." We were talking specifically about making travel easier, and in particular travel across Canada. She was saying we should just be able to "click" and hide Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario, and then it would be easier to get from BC, where I live, to Quebec where she and her family currently live. And then we'd simply "click" again, and those provinces would all be revealed once again.
Later, in the conversation, when I mentioned, among other things, that I might go do this BSc in physics, then I joked that perhaps I would figure out how to fold space in such a way that I could open my apartment door, step through it, and step into her and her family's apartment in Montreal and close the door behind me. I have not made it out their way for a real live visit and Montreal would be a pretty cool place to visit in addition to seeing my old friend.
Anyway, I think that an understanding of the universe in terms of a fractal model is going to be at least a step in that direction. And we were joking earlier about my having written a voluminous tome that would somehow survive into the future--as an actual bound book of paper pages--about my various "conjectures" about reality (some of which we discussed peppered throughout the conversation) that would turn out to be true, and folks, some of them anyway, would wear buttons or t-shirts (or whatever the future equivalent of such things would be) that read "Hydomako Was Right."
And of course we laughed about this. And I joked "What the fuck is a 'Hydomako'?" as I am sure most, if they were bothered to, would be prone to ask, heh.
Now, I think it is much more likely that some ingenious person already in the field of physics with a PhD will publish something that is very much like this model, and is more rigorous in terms of its formalization, that is, it will have equations that show such and such and the math will be present to justify the ideas. So people in the future will, if they do at all, wear buttons and t-shirts that say "[Ingenious Physicist with PhD's Name Here] Was Right."
So, I'd be lying if I said I didn't want my name attached to a revolutionary scientific idea. That would be awesome. I think this or a similar fractal model is that revolutionary scientific idea or at least part of it, but I am not sure if I will end up being the one to publish that more rigorous and mathematically sound paper that sparks or is part of such a revolution. I think by the time I earn a PhD in physics (at least five to seven years and maybe more, if my plan to earn a PhD in Philosophy is any indicator of success (going on seventeen years now and still sitting pretty with a BA), yup)--if indeed I ever accomplish such an endeavor--well, someone is likely going to write that paper before I do.
On the other hand, it is more about the idea--this idea, I feel, needs to get out there--and if I have this idea, others do too because that is how ideas and the "collective consciousness" works. So, if you have this idea too, dear reader, and are in a position to make it more rigorous and have also been prompted by some of my "rough work," then, hey, give me a footnote or something, ok?
See also this thread for further work on the fractal model or at least further explication of it in terms of the A & ~A "theory" about the world. With thanks to +sreejith s, of course.
For a whole lot more on A & ~A see my philosophy website.
And if you really want the hardcore stuff, then read this.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
One & Other: A.L.L.
 |
| Click to enlarge, please. |
Artist Statement:
This work--entitled "One & Other: A.L.L."--intends to capture, create, and/or represent and inspire towards A & ~A (enunciated as "A and not A") as the integral metaphor pointing to the fundamental "thing" that is at once the generator, source, maintainer, and "benefactor" of (this last less about money--indeed, no reference to currency at all--but instead includes notions of "value" and as that which "helps" or "supports") manifestation; while also a symbolic engraving, as in "etching," our necessary relationship between necessary dualistic pairings (such as, but not limited to, (One, Other), (Internal, External), (Subject, Object), (True, False), & etc.), by which our understanding is necessarily incomplete, upon the psyche of the One who experiences.
In order to arrive at a necessarily incomplete possible understanding of the metaphor, it is possibly necessary for us to undertake an analysis and exploration of each of the images, which together form an animated triptych, whereby the individual panels are united in sequence over time; which is to say, the inherently singular representations of each panel occupy the same location in space, but, due to their inherent Otherness from One and Other, they must necessarily be separated and analyzed or interpreted as individual metaphors or pointing to that which by their unification over time symbolizes the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Put differently, this work presents and represents a necessarily incomplete vision and enunciation of the Art and Science of Existential Engineering.
Analysis:
Image 1.
In this image we see the Milky Way galaxy as wrapped up inside a morphed representation of the horizon of our planet Earth. This panel of the triptych is entitled "OUTSIDE".
 |
| OUTSIDE |
The Milky Way galaxy is home to our wonderful and mysterious solar system. While we have some ideas about the objects that occupy these structures--the Milky Way and the Solar system--we certainly lack anything that reassembles a complete knowledge of these "Heavenly" structures, but we have at least some knowledge of these. We understand, for instance, that the Milky Way is embedded within a larger galactic structure, that the Solar system is embedded within the Milky Way, that our Earth is embedded within the Solar system, and that we are embedded in the Earth's own systems.
We are, from our own individual perspectives, looking outwards from the source of our perceptions, and towards that which lies, perhaps in some sense "deceivingly" so, outside of ourselves. Now, "deceivingly so" insofar as all our observations of an apparently external world become the objects of our necessarily subjective experiences and interpretations whereby informative signals from a possibly external world are passed along our human nervous systems and then ultimately reconstructed as sensory data in the electrochemical processes of the brain and these in turn, or perhaps not really by "turn," but more as a mutual co-arising, reveal themselves to each of us privately as representations of what we can only logically assume, but not logically assert as fact, is a shared world. Since we are necessarily limited to direct experiencing of only our own interpretations of informative signals from a seemingly external world, we are unable to be certain that any Other's interpretations of their own informative signals are identical to that of our own. Indeed, given that each of us is a unique structure of biological matter, we can, it seems, almost be certain that no two internally self-referential reconstructions of an apparently external world are in fact identical. We can merely hope, which is to say "have faith," that there is much more overlap than less.
A ponderous type of individual might notice of this panel, "OUTSIDE," the necessary conjunction of land and sky--mutually exclusive to One and Other--which unite through our observations to inform us of the incidental differences between One and Other which thereby conjoin to create our perception of a horizon. That the image wraps up our unique and location specific vantage point from a singular view and enfolds this around what is the greater outside expanse of our universe, is, in fact, a delightful visual pun whereby the "as above" becomes necessarily engulfed within the "so below." We see in this a direct reversal, an irony of sorts, with regards to the previous recognition and discussion of the order of embedding: visually this image suggests that it is the Earth that is embedded in ourselves, and the Solar system that is embedded in the Earth, and the Milky Way which is embedded in that. It reflects upon the notion that everything seemingly "out there" is in fact embedded within each instance of any specific human being.
Image 2.
In this image we see the singularity, that is to say, the black hole, as depicted in the film Interstellar. In the context of the triptych, this panel is entitled "INSIDE".
 |
| INSIDE |
Black holes as construed in theoretic physics are objects of intense interest and much theoretical work has been constructed around their analysis. Most of this is largely a sort of scientific mythology. We have never directly observed a black hole with our instruments and we have exactly zero satellites or space probes that have gotten anywhere near one. Moreover, we are strictly forbidden a look into the black hole beyond its event horizon and can not have access to the singularity that allegedly lies therein. Yet, we, some of us, anyway, still seem to like to talk about them a whole lot.
Every, or almost every, galaxy, it is speculated--because like we've ever really examined every galaxy in detail--has a massive black hole at its centre. We too, as human beings, we can also speculate, also have a "black hole" or "singularity" at our centre. This could be "cashed out" in terms of the Jungian archetype of the Self, but also "cashed out" not only in those terms.
Incoming informative signals from the things outside of ourselves cross the threshold of our own individual event horizons. These informative signals transit from something "out there" and become electrochemical impulses "in here." Once those signals cross the event horizon through our sensory apparatus and become these electrochemical signals, they are lost to the outside world in exactly the same way that things crossing the event horizon of a black hole are lost to the rest of the universe that the black hole is embedded within. We are, each of us, in this sense, the singular receiver and ultimate interpreter of our individually reconstructed version of whatever it is that might be "out there," and we are embedded within that which can only be knowable in itself as indirectly through our sensory apparatus.
As a singularity of Self, we are consuming or entrapping the incoming informative signals that are attracted to us by our own personal gravity. The individual mind is a singularity which bends the spacetime of collective consciousness in such a way as to generate a sense of individualized differentiation of One from Other. The mass of each of our necessarily differentiated and individualized minds warps the collective consciousness in such a way that the structure of this consciousness is stretched into a self and Other referencing loop that dances around and through the infinite. It is much like a Möbius Strip insofar as it is constructed from a seemingly two-sided surface which, when folded in a higher space, then becomes only a single sided structure. The length of the loop is itself infinite in the same way that a nonrotating singularity with no electric charge would also stretch the spacetime of the universe towards infinity as any object that passes its event horizon would then be able to observe. However, since the circles and cycles of our interpretive self-other referencing give our individual and singular minds what is an analogous occurrence of rotation and charge, the infinite recedes from our unique experiences of consciousness and instead grants us a comprehensible and seemingly finite interpretation of the received and processed sensory data.
To put all this a little bit differently, the "INSIDE" is where the "so below," that is, the incoming informative signals from the world as it is outside of us, becomes subsumed by "the above," by which we mean the individualized and uniquely personalized warping of collective consciousness that we each refer to as our own "mind."
Image 3.
In this image we see what is taken to be an "occult" or "alchemical" representation of reality. In the context of the work it is entitled "A.L.L. Together". It is itself composed of four unique symbols, perhaps in the same way that certain modes of "classic" thought suggested the universe was composed of four unique elements which occurred only together and could not be separated One from the Other to appear in their naked individuality or differentiated singularity. In the same way, this work, "One & Other: A.L.L." is actually four elements in one: there are the three individual images that form the triptych, and the animation, or movement, of the three images in time but not space then creates the fourth image, which is the whole of the work itself.
 |
| A.L.L. Together |
We will, in order to arrive at a clearer understanding of not only this particular part of the work, but also, of the overall work itself, need to examine these four symbols and their relationships between themselves. So let's delineate the four apparent symbols: the Ouroboros, the Triangle, the Sun, and the Eye.
Let's start with the Triangle.
Triangles, especially equilateral ones such as the one that occurs in the image, mean many different things to different people. Triangles such as this are seen, for instance, as the strongest or most stable geometrical shape: due to their structure, they are the most stable and most efficient shapes in terms of handling applied forces. This is why triangles often feature in various load bearing engineering designs.
Triangles also represent, obviously, Trinities of all sorts and kinds. There's the Holy Trinity of Christianity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) and there are also several Other instances of trinities in several other religions or mythologies: in Mesopotamia, there was Anu, Enlil, and Ea; in Egypt, there was Osiris, Isis, and Horus; in Babylon, there was Nimrod, Semiramas and Tammuz; in Plato's conception of the world, there's The Unknown Father, The World Soul, and the Logos. Indeed, there are occurrences of trinities to be found scattered throughout much of human conceptions of the world, ourselves, and the relation between the world and ourselves, which, clearly, is a trinity in itself: (world, ourselves, relation between).
As E.E. Rehmus frames it, there are, with respect to several instances of metaphysical trinities, the three following elements in the form of assertions:
1) There is one Immutable, Ineffable, Pre-manifestational Reality.
2) Everything is periodic or cyclic.
3) The cosmos is a hologram in which each part is a reflection of the whole.
The above three points are some things to consider about the elements of some trinities even if we choose not to believe in the elements of any specific trinity.
In terms of dualities, the triangle shows us how, exactly how, dualities exist in relation to One and Other. Indeed, One and Other is the primary mode of our experiencing: we exist as One in relation to an Other--many apparent Others, in fact. But there are two general categories of being in the world: self and Other. How is this a trinity we might ask? Because relations are objects. Indeed, on a deep analysis it seems as if relations are the only objects: the things we mark out as Other, the boundaries we define in our perceptions that determine our self, are merely a product of collecting as a whole, some set of relationships amongst apparent parts and bracketing these off in contrast to the rest of the relationships amongst the rest of the parts. So, to put it clearly, the Trinity of our actual being in the world is:
1. Self, as in myself, as in yourself, as in One.
2. Other, as in not myself, as in not yourself, as in Other.
3. &, as in the necessary relationship that must exist between the binary or dualistic pairing of (One, Other): One & Other is the trifold representation of the fundamental structure upon which any specific thing has its being in, and in contrast to, the world.
Further, we see that One is not Other when it comes to the relationship perceived between them. This is to say that, given the binary pairing of (One, Other), we can code this up in terms of symbolic logic as:
One := A, and since the negation of One, in terms of its dualistic pairing, is ~A, we see that:
Other := ~A, as the negation of A can only imply ~A in terms of a singular instance of a dualistic binary pairing.
Thus, the whole of our individualized and differentiated existences is entirely captured by the expression A & ~A. Each of these terms, (A, ~A, &) are "pointed to by" or "located at" the vertices of the equilateral triangle. The equilateral triangle itself demonstrates not only the necessary structure of our being, but also demonstrates that this is the strongest, most stable way to conceive of our existence: One in a necessarily conjunctive and ideally equitable relationship with the Other. QED.
Let's now turn our gaze towards the Eye, the Eye as it occurs in the triangle, which some people have some sort of fear or reservations towards, feeling that every occurrence of such a symbol is in fact evidence of some secret plot in which some secret and nebulous minority of people are, in fact, controlling everything. This is entirely not our concern here. What we see by the Eye as it occurs in the triangle is nothing more than the symbol that points to an Illuminated self, and not some Illuminati. Although, we might consider that any instance of an illuminated self would necessarily be part of an Illuminati ("Illumiated Ones") by definition.
But what is this self illuminating? Well, if we go back to our understanding of the triangle, then we see how the illumination is about the vertices of the triangle; that is, the eye exists in a single vertex of the triangle. This implies that we, as a singular conscious entity, are only able to illuminate one vertex in any given instance, or moment, of our being. We can, and most often habitually do, occupy the illuminated vertex as an instance of One, of self, of our own being. We can, however, through things like empathy, come to illuminate, as in see in our consciousness, as in give light to, the instances of Otherness, as in recognizing and identifying with the Others: we can, in this sense, see ourselves in or as the Other. And, finally, we can turn the triangle again, so that the vertex of & is where the light of our consciousness illuminates the relationship between any given thing and all the things it is not in order to understand exactly how One exists in contrast and conjunction to any Other.
This is the "Outside" description of the Eye as it occurs in the triangle. In other words, this is the Eye in the triangle as it represents the things outside our selves and their relationships to us. We can now turn inwards, and see the trinity that is illuminated by the Eye with respect to the "Inside."
The"Inside" trinity is:
1) Eye as object of seeing; that is, the mechanism by which informative external signals cross the event horizon of our being and are translated into internalized electrochemical informative signals.
2) Eye as in I, as in "Interpretation." We all have our modes of interpretation. Each of us has a decidedly unique and singular Interpretive structure that translates the internalized electrochemical informative signals into a picture, a representation, or manifestation of the world.
3) Eye as in I, as in the self, or ourselves, as Individuals with both eyes and Interpretive strategies for representing the world and the Others that occupy such a world to our unique, differentiated, and individualized instance of selfness.
This Inside trinity operates in conjunction with the Outside trinity. Put differently, there is a necessary conjunction between Inside & Outside; that is, we see in this conjunction yet another clear example of A & ~A: the Inside is not the Outside and vice versa--they are the negations of One and Other along a dualistic pairing of (Inside, Outside), whereby there is a necessary and, ideally, equitable relation of conjunction between Inside & Outside. We can literally and actually not have One without the Other in every possible sense of what that means.
So, the Inside Trinity operates in conjunction with the Outside trinity and we see how the Interpretive strategies of One must necessarily have at least some overlap with the Interpretive strategies of an Other if we are not only to be able to communicate and share in a reality, but also, have any ability to see ourselves in the Other. If the Other was entirely and utterly foreign to us, not only would we be unable to recognize our self in the Other, but we would not even be able to perceive the Other; which is to say, without mutually conjunctive and overlapping being in both an Internal and External sense, there would be no relation of One to an Other in any way at all. QED.
Let's now turn our increasingly dynamic and complex yet necessary gaze towards the Sun.
Ah, the Sun. Where would we be without the Sun? Well, we certainly would not be here at all. The Sun is central to our existence and it is what illuminates and powers our world: with regard to the Sun and its energies, which pour down upon us like so much Mana, it's not merely that without it life on earth would not exist, but the Earth itself would never have formed in the context or embedding in the gravitational wells allowed by the very mass of the Sun. So, is it any wonder that the Sun is the central figure in the triangle? No. Clearly it is the central object that allows for, and gives rise to, things like ourselves, Others, triangles, eyes, interpretations, and all the rest.
We could, if we wanted, examine the Sun in terms of Qabalistic or "occulted" meanings. In this sense, we can simply note that the Sun is central to the Tree of Life (the Sephiroth called "Tiphareth" aka "Beauty"), and it is associated with the heart, which is also central to our own Tree of Life; that is, the biological and metaphysical (aka "philosophical") necessity of the heart is clearly recognized as central to any instance of a human being, and that this Heart of things both real and ideal corresponds to what we call "Love." There is little question as to why we tend to draw hearts where we want to symbolize Love and we see through the lens of Qabalism that Love as Beauty is central to ourselves and Others. Put differently, Love is the beauty and the energy that is the force that acts within and without in regards to the equitable and strongest triangular manifestations of One and Other both Inside and Oustide. QED.
Finally, as in "last" but most certainly not the "least," we turn, as in circle, as in revolve--as in revolution--our thrice folded gaze, as in (Triangle, Eye, Sun), towards the Ouroboros.
Ah, the circle that consumes itself, that generates itself, that exists in its eternal perfection only in our ideals but is merely ever approximated in the world as a many sided object whose number of sides approach infinity, but since infinity is necessarily something that can not be represented adequately in a finite world, any actual instances of the circle are necessarily approximations--exactly like this entire evaluation, explanation, and interpretation of the images in the triptych: a necessarily incomplete representation of the whole.
The Ouroboros, then, is simply the cyclic oscillation between any instance of A in conjunction, &, with ~A. That is, it represents the necessary and complete union of all opposites whereby the seemingly apparent differences are collapsed into a singular circle of consuming and creating being. QED.
So, taken together as a whole, we see that the third image is nothing more and nothing less than a pictographic metaphor that intends to point the viewer, the experiencer, the I that Interprets through the Eye, towards that which, ultimately, can neither ever be fully understood nor wholly held in the mind in its entirety. It is a representation of the ineffable which intends to allow us inroads towards "effing" the ineffable. QED.
Image 4.
Is the whole of the work itself, the triptych as unified in space but necessarily differentiated in time. It is its own representation of the dynamics of "effing" the ineffable. As such, it is the Alchemical process of turning metaphorical lead into metaphorical gold, and this--no matter how it is analyzed or represented--is only something any individual can undertake alone. No One of us can understand for the Other, we can merely offer our own understandings with the hope that such understandings are well received by any Other, and it is the Other who must accomplish the Alchemical work in order to understand.
The fourth image is A & ~A whereby A can be assigned to either INSIDE or OUTSIDE and that assignment determines which term becomes ~A and the two are both united in, and defined or differentiated by, &, which is the ineffable relationship pointed to in A.L.L. Together. The work is a rotational symmetry of evolving being. It is the blinking of the cosmic and all seeing (eye, I) by which Self comes to manifest as instances of Other as derivations from necessary and fundamental paradox.
QED.
A Three by Ten Matrix Generating One Thousand
Possibly Intentional but Also Equally Unintentional Meanings of
Possibly Intentional but Also Equally Unintentional Meanings of
A.L.L.
Presented in Terms of Alternating Sense and Nonsense
Hi it's Eve bringing you a update from the year 2020. I read this over and when I got to here, I realized that it is not clear how the Matrix works, so here is how to play:
1) Use any method you Choose to pick a word from column 1,
2) Use any method you Choose to pick a word from column 2, and the method need not be the same as the last one you used if you do not Choose it to be,
3) As in (2) above, but for column 3.
4) The three words taken together generate a phrase: it will mean something to you--make sense--or not.
It occurs to me now, but didn't then, that we could also view each set of three words six different ways: there are 3! (three factorial) ways to order a set with 3 members. So we can repeat the above steps with each of the three words to determine a possibe set of up to six phrases from each set of 3 words.
Hunh. How about that?
After the Fact
Discussion and development of the notion of consciousness expressed in the above work is at least partially unfolded here.
Reference to E.E. Rehmus and his notions of the Trinity are from The Magician's Dictionary An Apocalyptic Cyclopaedia of Advanced Magic(k)al Arts and Alternative Meanings, by E.E. Rehmus, as published by Feral House, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1990.
Original Images from:
"INSIDE" comes care of Miguel Claro with some some small alterations by myself of the edges to make for a more seamless representation in the overall work.
"OUTSIDE" comes from a Google search of images for the singularity as it has been advertised and disseminated far and wide with respect to the movie Interstellar. Find it yourself, it's easy to do. Also some minor alterations by myself in order to make its appearance in the animation more seamless.
"A.L.L. Together" comes care of The Royal Order of the Holy Mackerel and I have no idea where this Order co-opted this particular depiction of the Orouboros from, but I will say it was exactly the image needed for the work.
All images used entirely without any permission of their respected owners, and no ownership is claimed or implied on behalf of myself, b.e. hydomako, towards any specific image. Each image is used under the intention of "fair use" law insofar as such use by myself is intended as commentary, research, teaching, and scholarship, as specifically demonstrated in the above analysis of these images.
Terms and Conditions
The work itself--"One & Other: A.L.L."--is licensed as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International, which, as I, b.e. hydomako, understand it means: any presentation of "One & Other: A.L.L." must also be accompanied by the complete text, or a clear and well defined link (embedded in the page of representation of this material) to the text as it occurs on this page, and no instance of the complete text shall be without accompaniment of the image "One & Other: A.L.L." or at least a clear and well defined link (embedded in the page of representation of this material) to this image as it occurs on this page. Any reproduction of the work in its entirety or in part must be accredited to b.e. hydomako either directly and include a link to this page on the page in which such reproduction occurs, or indirectly by including a clear and well defined link to this page on the page in which such reproduction occurs. Any hard copy version of this work in whole or in part must be accredited to b.e. hydomako and include somewhere in the hard copy a clear and well defined string of symbols which together define the URL of this page. Portions of the text may be used with respect to fair use law, but reference to the source (this page and its creator, b.e. hydomako) is always required. No other parties shall profit by any use of this page, in whole or in part, with regards to any of its contents--imagery or text--and any such profiting is open to liable action. Any monetary settlements from any such actions, after such settlements reimburse me, b.e. hydomako, for any and all and only the cost of such legal action and any expenses accrued in conjunction with such legal action, are to be donated in the entirety of their remainder to the charity of my choosing. Any commercial use of this work, whether for profit or nonprofit or not-for-profit, is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of its creator, b.e. hydomako. Any viewing of this page or pages in which material from this page occur which satisfy the aforementioned terms re: accreditation of source or any hard copy of this material in whole or in part which satisfy the aforementioned terms re: accreditation of source counts as recognition, acknowledgement, and agreement to the terms as presented herein. Any party or parties which do not give satisfactory accreditation of source, as defined in the above, in any reproduction of any of the materials on this page shall be solely responsible for all damages accrued from subsequent derivations and representations of the original unaccredited reproduction in any form. Any discrepancies between my understanding of the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license and the interpretation of this license as presented herein shall always defer to the terms presented herein. Any terms of licensing lacking as presented in the aforementioned interpretation of the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license shall always defer to the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license. Both the Terms and Conditions defined herein and the materials presented on this page are subject to change without notice and all such changes to the Terms and Conditions are binding to every specific instance of the presentation or the representation of the material on this page for all time and for every possible instance of change. Any profit from the use of this page or its contents and any future derivatives, reformulations, and representations of its contents in both their use and their possible or actual profits--excluding the use of the specific and individual images named herein as "OUTSIDE", "INSIDE", and "A.L.L. Together" as images separate and exclusive from the whole textual work of "One & Other: A.L.L." or as exclusive and individuated from the animated triptych; i.e., no ownership of any of the specific individual images as they are in themselves is ever intended or implied outside their use in terms of "fair use" with respect to their use in this presentation or any future possible derivatives--by their owner, b.e. hydomako, are and shall remain the sole property of said owner. Safe Muffins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)