Log in

What thought experiments have YOU conducted today?

> recent entries
> calendar
> friends
> profile

Wednesday, December 13th, 2006
5:45 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
10:47 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
11:09 am

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,
Randy Dible

(comment on this)

Sunday, November 12th, 2006
12:19 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!

(comment on this)

Wednesday, August 24th, 2005
2:14 pm - Ontological double genitive

I'm starting Derrida's "Writing and Difference" and have come across "ontological doube genitive" (Heidegger, I think, on the ontico-ontological difference between beings and Being). I'm curious because it sounds like like another term I know for the key distinction of subjectivity and objectivity from Gotthard Gunther's cybernetics "the Proemial Relation" [between 'relator'(relationship) and 'relatum'].

"Ontological double genitive" anyone?

(comment on this)

Saturday, June 4th, 2005
3:02 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
Arises from

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....").]
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.

(4 comments | comment on this)

Friday, January 28th, 2005
12:44 pm - Polyverse

Party One

Proposition One; PolyContent-uality, Love, Profundity, Hetero-reference

On The Love of Certain and Uncertain Trains and Trainings

“The Force” of the martial arts is often identified with the use of chi or ki energy, but dramatic kung fu psychology recognizes the power of the mind and the intellect to recognize and describe a scene’s reality, so adopting Tai Chi’s triplicity of Chi, Jing and Shen as the physical forces which construct the physical world, wherein Shen is the Spirit or pure subjectivity (consciousness-without-an-object), and Jing the meaning of these processes, the Force, in this most general definition, is the grace of subjective forms, the creativity of the creature, in the life world, it is love, the ambience to all audience. The forces which recognize subjectivity itself as their abstract convergence are graced with this force and a love of the training ensues. In such cases of the force in training, in application, the objective “Force” may dynamically re-define itself as the “Zone”, as in sports psychology. But it is felt in everyday life experience, there are many routines we love to do.

Proposition Two; PolyContextuality, Life, Subjectivity, Self-reference

German and American, the philosopher Gotthard Gunther, created this long word in reference to contextures which are logical domains of logical subjects and objects. The objective of the terms reification in its specific linguistic coincidence is the unity of the relevant related disciplines as a topical convergence, a definition of subjectivity, the defining junction. Life as poly-contextuality means the subject-superject Whitehead intended in his metaphysics. In Whitehead’s technical phraseology, subjectivity is formalized as ‘subjective forms’ which extend in abstraction from the conscious tip of relevance to the subconscious ultimate Unknowable as the paradoxical face of pure Subjectivity. The Easterners would call this Shen, the Europeans would speak of its paradox, the Americans would work on presenting it through the metaphysician role so as to capitalize on it, so of course a German/American came up with it.

In general, the human work, poietic or practical, composition or construction, can be applied to the Zone or Force of the so-called will-power. Immediately, this relates to the (forgive this technicality) model of the dramaturgical potentials (dramatic potential as eternal objects) called “peak experiences”, totally spiritual actually in reference to subjectivity, but also normative in colloquial usage or real life. From organic to spiritual (including mental, physical, emotional, and social) autopoietic systems (this sentence expresses sentience), paradigms are trained (routed, rooted, roted) and recognized or authoratively noted in the profound artifice and the arts of the good [health: (organically and temporally) one’s cosmic, immortal objectivity; evil being the disease of health and madness devoid of bizzaries ]. One’s cosmic immortal objectivity may find itself presently (immediately) or historically (mediately) by means of the yogic act of Samadhi-- the act of distinction being the event horizon of the blankness of the singularity as the definition of the hole, total unity or oneness-- which is colloquially the normal attendance by one’s audience (others) of one’s ambience (expressed compositions).

The Model Presented: The Calculus of the Present

Axiom One: Subjectivity, Self-reference

Axiom Zero: Profundity, hetero-reference

The Axiology of the Calculus of the Present is imaginary in abstraction and application. All value is imaginary. The oscillation without duration is the basis of objectivity, as well as the signature of subjectivity since it (as an abstraction or eternal object, most opportunity-cost efficiently) comprehends state change. And as to compliment this theory of value (axiology) based on Profundity, a semiotic interpretation of the calculus follows in the second party.

The true conduction of the calculus of the present is its simplification of the imperatively coming profound paradigm of subjectivity, the paradoxical organized form that it is or is not, since its parametric referents are of an imaginary field, the same imaginary field we conduct our selves in. The Calculus is also found to be most conducive to the paradigm of paradise. Factional or fictional, only function is relevant to constructural transductions (a term from neuro-psychology and psychophysics) called the conduction of profound bizzaries. Transductions are the Neural Correlates to Consciousness (NCCs of the respective disciplines and doctrines such as cognitive constructivism) of reification in experience.

Latent Profundity is a problem of the normative paradigm as well as negative programs and formalities. The symptom of normative latency is the adaption of characteristic behavior. The cure is cognitive or spiritual openness. But without applying appropriate (most conducive) paradigms (exemplified in the relaxation of yoga, idealized in its Samadhi, the perfect continence of distinction itself becoming identification or unity) in order to stage the cure, loss of reference can be dangerous too. The interface of the human biocomputer general programs and paradigms, perhaps even scenes and stages of the human autopoietic ambience of the natural audience can be achieved and somewhere (I don’t know, it could be here) in the polyverse of the imaginative opportunity-cost found.

Proposition Three; PolyContemptuality or Madness, contingently required.

The Internal Infernal

Beware this profound subjective interface. Polycontemptuality is madness. Its temperate is too fast, the mad creature’s temperature is too hot. Madness, in its purest, most abstract sort, is hellishly illegal, if there be laws, but differs from the in-sanity of consense.

More on Consense.

Party Two

(comment on this)

Saturday, January 8th, 2005
11:35 pm - Within Subjectivity... Best you decide the rest.

This paragraph, you’ll find, is actually about the possibilities of subjective experience extra-textually recognized as the unmarked space, but the subject as well as the objective is subjectivity. In the spelling of “word” and world”, the distinction is mere, slight. The semantic distinction is related. Words capture archetypical characters called symbols by the subjective form called the intellect which processes these symbols sequentially according to the identical points of each syntagm in each paradigm of the words of that selection in that language. The points of identity (the basic subjective form) are all the same cosmic consciousness, recursive self-reference, circles of subjectivity. In fact, out of form (objectless, actually), this source of syntagm-forms, of all forms, is pure subjectivity. It does not contain objects, but there are certain laws (by the calculus of indications) as to what forms can emerge and what scenes they create. Gotthard Gunther calls subjectivity “poly-contextuality” connoting the technical idea of logical domains as contextures. All physical processes (from the quantum virtual particles to the molecular to the organic and the great unknown other processes in this one universe) are subjective. Alfred North Whitehead in his “Process and Reality” says “the process is the experiencing subject itself” and he means it most generally, but also specifically to his technical “concrescence” which is the composite inside of autopoietic constructs, [connoting the autopoiesis paradigm of organic circuitry originating subjective experience (called corporeality (to contrast categoreality) in the philosophy of organism) the implicit paradigm of incarnation of organism,] which in light of the eternal order of operations regarding the structured differentiations or dynamics of distinction (to contrast the eternal order of observations regarding the positive distinctions of com-position), is the character or ego of the creature, as written or programmed by the text in the scenic syntagm-contexture (the operator of the con-cre-scenic (social-creative-scene process) of consciousness which is merely the tip of the iceberg in side (peripherally) of the staged con-text. This all happens in the present. All processes of self-referential iterations and recursions here described are not temporal, only spatial, positive and com-positive of the operator, the subject-superject which is the actual entity, the animation or ambience is here taken as the system in the environment of audience, here in the sociology of knowledge, which all of this connotes. To note Plato, the social audience is of the music of the spheres, the complete definitions within the noise of the pre-scene, ante-present but not passed, eternal order which by now I’d be better off calling heaven. Its elsewhere known as the (Tibetan) “densely-packed region,” the (cosmological) “high-inflationary period,” but it is the original singularity before the universe is cognitively constructed, pure subjectivity. Pure objectivity, to contrast in this first distinction, is, though Unknown and hence Unknowable (Whitehead and Wittgenstein’s negative thesis), Profundity itself found in objective form is love itself, the eternal object.

Additionally, at this level of oneness called pure subjectivity (which is injunctively, in practice, the colloquially vague “life”) there is latent profundity; in terms of objectivity, there is form to pure subjectivity, but it is the universal first form, and that form is the distinction, the point of origin of any system. Before a side is designated of the first distinction and identity is placed there, the subject of any expression is topical, isolated in space from an opportunity cost transporting aspect, only a hint of which is expressed. In the ensuing imperative expression of the rest of the cost, of other courses of the topic, appetitious tangentiality is attracted to stranger aspects of other natures. Characteristic contextual references (autopoietic or allopoietic, self-referential or hetero-referential natures of creatures, organic or not) save the normal role, but there is no soul, subjective forms are free but inter-dependant, logical operators, not rational persons. There is reason to be optimistic. All forms of love are the inside of all forms of life.

The ground of first subjective form is the basic subjective form called identity. It is also the principle of equivalence. Identity is oneness, semiotic singularity and symbolically the point. So archetypically or universally, the point of any program is its identity as an atomic actual entity. The persistence of this identity is the first characteristic temporal objective, the persistence of identity in time, to maintain temporal self-reference, persistent identity is the first objective of creatures as well as pure subjectivity itself in a temporal dimension. But in any dimension, any temporal contexture of organism (an organic creature is conscious of its world, unconscious of most of it, but since incarnate, conscious of its own subjectivity and that of other organisms by its recognition of the first distinction; the duality of the world is the gravity of the matter of fact, as well as the objective experience of time, consciousness of higher dimensions of cause (source) and effect/affect which is in nature one’s karma which is physical, psychical and spiritual) directly relevant to subjectivity which is the Spirit worshipped by enthusiasts, technically called “poly-contextuality.”

Iteration is the character of self-reference in operation. Character is the observed position of the composed ego, the identity of the subjective form of communication. The oneness of the rest of self-reference, the unity called pure self-reference is only social contextually as a false felt absence in the other actual entities which always there are. Cosmic manners suggest reverence to these felt absences since they present potentiality, the opportunity cost, which is a contextual phenomena of the event horizon of the singularity in the form of the first distinction, its phenomenal virtual portal, the last phenomena before the noumenal void of the Unknowable. So by this I find that form is social inherently, but can be lost in time, if it is temporeal in its character of iteration. Fortunately, but only if it is true, the internal eternal inferno of a bad journey through heaven, a fall from grace, can only be found from a subject of characteristic form, an ego blind to the liberating power of intelligence -- which is the jnana yoga this explication is an instance of -- and the closeness to pure subjectivity of any creature, infernal or merely eternal, but not temporal. Time is bad. Someone should write a higher-dimensional environmental program for the human organic form and an Earth of higher dimensions for future simulation and assimilation for real-world spiritual applications so that we can remain optimistic about the strange novelties coming from the Unknowable unmarked state of the future.

(comment on this)

Monday, May 24th, 2004
2:02 pm - Refocused Thought
darkfader Hey everyone, Just found this community and thought it looked fun, but neglicted. So in the intrest of jumpstarting this a little bit, because philosophy is the root of all wisdom, and moreover, literally, the love of wisdom(coined by my buddy pythagouras), It deserves to be more than active. Lets continue to explore this and have fun with it.

Now, just for the heck of it, define, in your own words (before reading the comments cheaters), the phrase;

Intuitive Contradiction

And mention houw it might apply in situations known to you, and how it could be utilised in a benificial (to everyone) way.

current mood: awake

(3 comments | comment on this)

Sunday, March 28th, 2004
5:25 pm - Experiential Attitude Modification


Hello, I'm one of the new interns at the company, and this came in the mail. Since it's my first case, I was wondering if you guys could help out.

It's a lovely Spring day in NYC (a bit cloudy but still nice) and I want to go out and play. The only problem is that I have a load of work to do.

Here are some solutions I thought of:

  1. Suck it up and just do my work
  2. Compromise by working and playing concurrently or in interspersed intervals, thereby getting only half of my work done
  3. Not do my work, go out and play, and suffer the consequences
  4. Transform my work into play through Experiential Attitude Modification (EAM—this will make work feel like play)
Read more...Collapse )

What are you all talking about? No, I didn't write the note myself!

(3 comments | comment on this)

Saturday, February 28th, 2004
2:56 am - Thought Experiment

I posted recently about time, physics' views of it, and its implication on philosophies concerning free will and time.

The experiment is simple and this.

If time is a river, and you the boat, and it is possible to paddle slower or faster to avoid "rapids", or something bad in your life, then how would you translate how far we can see down the "river". Is it then possible to see so far ahead (and behind you) that the journey is pointless if we suppose the goal is to go "through" time.

(This is assuming that time, as many physicists say, is more of a mental process than an actual property seperate from space)

(3 comments | comment on this)

Thursday, February 5th, 2004
7:17 am - When was the last time?

Sometimes we can be myopic fools.

We spend hours, if not days or lives on end aspiring to higher learning and understanding all the abstract metaphysics of existence and our universe, endlessly trying to understand the macrocosmic conspiracy of it all.

We lose sight of the microcosmic marvels in front of us?

How else can we appreciate an entire solar system if we can't appreciate a few square inches of it?
Too often we forget we're just a collection of cells that's part of a converging series of hierarchies, first social, then political, then planetary, then interstellar and to infinity.

Quantum physics teaches us that to understand the functions of the most elementary things is to understand the universe as a whole.

So when was the last time you smelled the roses?

(4 comments | comment on this)

Wednesday, February 4th, 2004
7:43 pm - Zen Buddhism and Existentialism

Hello. I'm new here.

The other day, I was discussing philosophy (amateur) with a friend, a Zen Buddhist monk. I was attempting to explain how existentialism is actually quite Buddhist but doing a very bad job of it. Other than an ad hominem arguement against it, for being the product of "western thought", he disagreed with me.

Can anyone here help me explain?


(18 comments | comment on this)

10:54 pm - brainstim recording-- the casting challenge

I remember, when the brainstim industry was just getting started, how difficult it was at first to find suitable recordants.

You’d think that they could just slap the helmet on any person right?

Well, think about this: Nobody enjoys reliving the experience of a paranoid recordant, to name just one. I mean, it could be a pleasant meadow full of butterflies, a pleasant fluffy meadow, and an anxiety-ridden recordant would be on the lookout for wasps, and it shows! It’s hard to dissimulate anxiousness on a brainstim recording.

So, no nervous or competitive recordants.

Woah! That just writes off most Hollywood actresses, doesn’t it?

We found what we needed for pure recordings was someone very calm, unreactive, someone who just goes with the flow, is open to the experience, who’s mind is totally on the moment, and not distracted by extraneous thoughts-- shopping lists or some such nonsense.

We puzzled over that one until it hit us—why not recruit meditation teachers?

In fact one of our “star” recordants, was Agnes C. Many of you have enjoyed the brainstim where you were a sporty, graceful woman, swimming with the dolphins in Mauritius—but I bet few of you realized that the recordant was not a young lady at all, but a 68-year old yoga teacher! (and one of my good friends, I might add)

(6 comments | comment on this)

8:43 pm - letter of complaint

Yeah, so I got a letter of complaint today. Whoo-whee!

I just checked out the staff photos on your corporate website, and none of your researchers look a day over 30! Now, as I’m paying a *load of money for philosophical consulting, you can imagine me sitting here and scratching my head! I’d like to know how you think a kid in his twenties could possibly advise me on questions of grief and death? What is their qualification?

So I wrote back:

With all due respect, and in two words: talent and methodology.

First, talent: Einstein discovered e=mcc when he was in his twenties! Mozart composed a symphony at age eleven! Enlightenment is just one of those natural talents—you either have it or you don’t (though hard work will take you a fair distance even without talent). Our recruiting and training program has given us one of the largest metaphysical talent pools in the world.

Second, methodology: we are the only existential consulting company we know of doing actual experiential research. Which means in addition to CRIAN Surveys of all existing spiritual and philosophical literature, we also carry out direct conversations with God. Because our method of arriving at the God-Glimpse, or Enlightenment-experience, is still under patent review, I am not allowed to say anything about the actual methodology, except to say that it involves only legal procedures, and does incorporate some techniques from yoga, meditation, and strobe-light hypnotherapy.

(2 comments | comment on this)

7:19 pm - we're outsourcing!

Yeah, so we outsourced our research and development to Bangalore. Those philosophers are sharp over there, I mean, how many kids in the West grow up with the Upanishads as their bedtime reading? We wanted to hire ten researchers, tops, and would you know that over eight hundred licensed metaphysicians sent in resumes?

These days, I myself am focusing mostly on conception, marketing, liasing with clients, after-sales service: of philosophical packages.

Most clients come with a very precise request: “help me make sense of my existence, my place in the universe!” And I have to admit existential metaprograms are a core strength of the Bangalore office. Sometimes I find it ironic that the work so brilliantly started by Kant and Schopenhauer is being consummated in the East. Read more...Collapse )

(comment on this)

5:40 pm - Café au lait and my free will experiment.

Now, I know that the universe bifurcates everytime I make a choice (if I choose “A,” then a new universe branches off from our own, in which I chose “B”), so today I decided to give the universe a rest. I decided to not make a choice.

Well, I didn’t exactly decide, since that would be self-contradictory. It was more an intuition that came spontaneously, just when I was getting ready to drink a steaming mug of café au lait at the breakfast table.

So I paused, with my elbows resting on the round wooden table. I didn’t reach for the mug. I didn’t not reach for it either. I can’t say I did nothing, because clearly what I was doing was avoiding the choice entirely, and yet in such a pointed way that it was anything but avoidance.Read more...Collapse )

(1 comment | comment on this)

3:45 pm - mind-transfusion epistemology case study number one

As a mind-transfusion epistemologist, I am often called on for my expert advice in lawsuits related to self-help “treatments” that go awry. Read more...Collapse )

In the case where I was called on for advice, the plaintiff was a client who’d undergone a “stop-smoking” brainstim intervention. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s intervention, by associating the urge to smoke with a pattern-interrupt (“take a deep breath and count to ten”)— resulted in a substantial decline of “the pleasure of living.”

Though the intervention itself was successful, and the plaintiff successfully stopped smoking, the plantiff found himself compulsively practicing the pattern-interrupt—during meals, while out clubbing, drinking with friends, during films at the cinema. He was thus not able to “fully appreciate” the pleasures of said: meals, outings, drinking, cinema.

The defendant company argued that these were precisely the situations where he was previously liable to reach for a cigarette. And furthermore that the client was free to interpret his brainstim experience as he wished—that the one-hour brainstim intervention was epistemologically identical to a dream, which one can ignore and forget.

So the questions facing me were: to what extent should the brainstim company be responsible for its client’s post-brainstim cognitive dissonance and anhedonia? And to what extent is a brainstim experience epistemologically identical to a dream?

(1 comment | comment on this)

12:06 am - Experiential Religious Research

Religion would have a much more fruitful and harmonious dialogue with Science if it would follow similar methods, that is, carry out experiments.

The problem is that religious research is text-based, so we end up turning in hermeneutic circles within the scripture. Religious research should instead be experience-based, as it is in science.

Religious knowledge should be continuously updated—via direct consultation with God. We would ask those mystics who have had direct encounters with God to enter their oral history into the database of God-experiences.

The problem is verifiability. How would we know if a person has had an authentic encounter with God?

We’d have to have a way of recording the experience of all the senses at the time of encounter, taking a full brainstim record of the experience—that can be played back and hence verified by others.

(4 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004
9:52 pm

This is where philosophers and pranksters hang out when they’re not on duty, where they invent Lacanisms for fun, and discuss utterly implausible theories and their logical consequences.

It’s also a place for incredibly profound thoughts in mind-blowingly simple language.

This is the place for gibberish and nonsense, and rants in your own private language! But please, make it well-crafted, thought-provoking gibberish. You know, things that almost make sense? Think Muholland Drive, here.

Unsolvable ethical dilemmas, trick questions, trick answers, and irresolvable paradoxes are welcome.

As are philosophical riffs that just go all over the place. And unabashed wordplay. Read more...Collapse )

(1 comment | comment on this)

> top of page