Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

dan wrote:Cy,

I'm not in favor of guns, but I understand that some folks need that extra sense of security.  

Yesterday we were at the national Cathedral doing the flower market for Kashmir-Rose.  Today we are headed to a WCUAVC flight day at a school down here.  


Was looking at the connection between India and Greece back in the day.  In fact there was a Greco-Indian empire, created by Alexander the Great.  The mutual influence



(cont.)

Well guns have their place, but that wasn't the point...the point was that Hillary equates gun possession with violent individuals or groups and I think I quite clearly illustrated the problem with that kind of thinking by saying I've never been responsible for hurting someone.

I'm not a violent person and my record attests to that. Hillary however is responsible for the deaths of two exemplary military members and one Ambassador, all by design. She also responsible for the arrests and loss of career of one General and one Admiral who attempted to send in a rescue party. They would have been successful in the rescue and then the creation of ISIS and the gun running that contributed to it would have been exposed. Nothing like wiping the proof of criminal wrong doing off the map to protect your own arse Hildebeast? Like any of us would forget and forgive her? Hillary apparently doesn't own guns and yet she's been responsible for the ending of at least three lives and two careers. She's five ahead of this gun owner. And that's just what we happen to know about. There's rumors her and her prior hubby were involved in the drug trade of Arkansas and S. America...then there's China and Walmart. I could go on but what's the point. Truth is too old fashioned and justice is also out-dated.

I'm a celt so truth and justice is not a cultural trait in the eyes of the modern umbrella society which refuses to acknowledge those traits as part of the nation's psyche, but rather as a personal neurosis that they'd probably insist a straightjacket and heavy medication be applied to if I were within reach in DC. Truth and justice equals neurosis? What kind of thinking is that?!! But that's the spew emerging from orgs like DHS since its inception. So when it comes to commentary, turn-about-is-fair-play. They and their flunkies make snide comments about us and we return the favor.

>>>on India and Greece...look at the Sanskrit language and old greek. Then compare it to Old Irish. Fascinating? Now look at some of the ideas each culture valued...same again. All three have same root system. Ah but why would anyone care about the legacy of the elder gods? 'er ET and the seeding of civilizations? Virmana are inconveniences...ah! and there once was one in the vicinity of Fermoy Eire of all places! That is if you can take the Christian overlay off the history.

>>> on the subject of the Glyphs:

432 Mystery

432 Mystery: the first lesson - the Abducted Preceptor

I've been making two conflicting claims about the monad, but first allow me to start at the beginning.........

I'm an immaterialist.... but why....?

Materialism has led us down a blind alley.  Yes, it has been very successful from a technological PoV, but we have run into limits in its consumption of resources.  Even in computational power, we are running into physical limits.  

But, most significantly, it is, in its very truncated view of the world, subverting our humanity.  No, not the technology.  The subversion comes despite the incredible advances in communication.

The subversion comes in the alienation of ourselves from the world, and from oursleves.  

There was the understanding that we held a special place in the world..... that our existence was, somehow, underwriten, or even sponsored.  And that this was our temporary home.

In its laser-like focus on the analysis of nature, science deconstructed our very sense of being. Nature was objectified, and so were we.  We were given the choice between material or scriptural fundamentalism.  All the rest was consigned to poets and artists.  

Our sapience was harnessed to the analytical imperative.  There were defenders of our individual existence, but that was about it.  We were not even allowed an essence. It was all atoms in the void, with maybe a smidgen of freewill.  The atoms were allowed to swerve, on occasion.

To a young physics student, it was a powerful vision.  The world lay at our doorstep.  It was up to us to penetrate to the heart of the matter.  If there was any god, he was a mathematician.  He spoke only mathematics.  

What coherence there was in the world, was owed entirely to mathematics, which resided in some Platonic heaven, in splendid isolation.  

The biological sciences?  Well, they presented us with an unbroken string of accidents, frozen in amber, as it were.  

Nature is a plethora of biological/evolutionary dead ends, and aren't we are just the latest and greatest example of that rule?  


1:30--------

Yes, we have, with some abandon, turned oursleves into objects.  What happened to our subjectivity?  What happened to our personhood?  Hey, say the scientists...... not our concern.

Life is an absurdity in a meaningless universe?  Who's to say not?  

Many protest, but who's to put their intellect where their mouth is?

Despite the odds lined up against them, philosopers of the mind labor on.  It is a lonely battle, but not quite so lonely as this one.  

More than a few who study the mind-body problem have come to realize that it presents much more than a mere puzzle.  Nagel, for instance, suggests that it points to a fundamental omission in science, itself, going all the way back to the origin of science, coming out of Cartesian dualism.  Ever since then, scientists have been looking for the mind, under their 'proprietary' lamppost' of analysis and reduction.  Meanwhile, the strong-AI people are betting billions on that speculation.  They see no reason to question that premise.  

Who am I to say otherwise?  

Scientists, I suggest, are simply not seeing the forest, for the trees.  They are so caught up in the daily struggle that they afford themselves no opportunity to wonder at the larger picture.  

That's alright, I'm happy to do their wondering for them.  All the more wonder for the rest of us.  

But here's the irony.... the big picture is the Small World.  No, I'm not talking about everybody being everybody else's sixth cousin.  Well, that too.  But, no, I'm talking about the BPWH/SWH/CTC, and all that.  

It may be a small world, but that small word comes in a big package.  The package is monism.  

Materialism bills itself as a kind of monism.  Perhaps, under the guise of mathematical physcialism, but even that's a stretch.  


3pm--------

What's holding everything together?  Biologists tell us it's the glycans.  Oh, yes, and gravity.  Everything else is fortuitous.  

Space and time.....?  Sorry, but, according to the cosmologists, space is heading into its ultimate, inflationary expansion phase, ending in the Big Rip.  

And, hey, isn't it within our power to blow the world to smithereens?  

Hey, again, we may be on an evolutionary dead end, but we don't have to go out with a whimper.... oh, no, we can take at least half the world with us!  Hmmm........


But, wait, say I, raising my hand, in the back of the class.  What's holding those glycans together?  Hey, stupid, it's all just sticky fingers!  Hmmm, again..........

Are the polysaccharides the ultimate cosmic glue?  And, all along, I thought it was love.  

Yes, I've spent all day going around the mulberry bush, just to get us back to organicism.  Polysaccharides are sticky, but that's not quite the point.  It's the orchestration that's the problem.  

We all have our genetic blueprint, which is our genome, giving rise to our proteome. But, more complex than the proteome, is the glycome, and it doesn't even have a blueprint. Most of this complexity has been realized just since 2000. The geneticists have been telling us that they have the key to life. The glycologists are not quite so sure.

Neither am I. And who am I? Nobody. Well, I used to have a bbq-buddy at the CIA. He told me that the world was about to end, and I haven't heard from him, since.



(cont.)

Stop the presses.... we now have a new theory of the origin of life......

Forget selfish genes, we now have selfish ribosomes......

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150107101405.htm

Well, I'm only a year behind the times.  The question is why this theory took so long to develop.  It seems patently obvious.  There were really two competing theories..... yes, selfish genes, but, behind the genes was the cellular theory.  

The idea was that, yes, replicating molecues came first, but there would be default parasitism, if there were not a containing membrane. But then we have to replicate the replicator and the membrane..... an unlikely, two-step process.  

So, no, instead of genes and membranes, we have self-contained ribosomes.  IOW, it's all just one big happy molecue.  

Hey, maybe this is how the glycosome got its start, by serving as the de-facto 'membrane' of the ribosome.  I'll just bet'ya.  

You'd think I might be upset, now that we've figured out the origin of life.  Hmmm....... But, somehow I'm not.  

Remember, I'm not a creationist.  It's the creationists who will be upset.  They suppose that God had to intervene in the origin of life, by, for instance, putting membranes around genes.  

I think not.  We're using the wrong end of the creation scope.  

To put that more accurately, we need to view the origin of life more holistically.... panentheistically.  We need a new word.... panenpsychically.  

We are the ultimate microcosms.  Atoms and cells are derived from us, by us and through us.  How does this new 'origin' shed any more light on the derivation process?  


2:30----------

An atom then is an image of the Monad, as are we, but we have much more individuality.  Atoms have mainly contextuality.  

A cell and an archaic ribosome are also micrcosms, of course.

The origin of the ribosome might, then, be telling us something about cosmic origins.  Both origins refer to the deep, logical dimension of time.  

As a point of speculation, the ribosomic theory would tend to support the olympiad theory.  How, though, would symmerty breaking (SB) enter the picture?  What is the symmerty to be broken?  

In this primordial reproductive cycle, we're also looking at the primordial CTC.  

We also have things like the Krebs cycle.  



(cont.)

Dan, I think you should consider the "gravity" of the situation in the context of the 'atomic monad' above.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

Well, I used to have a bbq-buddy at the CIA. He told me that the world was about to end, and I haven't heard from him, since.

I'm wondering if he has found the "third (secret) door" in the mountain facility.

Gary,

I don't believe in nothing.  I don't believe in the inflation of nothing, either.  The concept of nothing logically derives from the concept of space.  On nobody's account is space actually nothing. Even on Newton's account, space harbors all kinds of potentially..... that ain't nothing.  With modern physics, that potentiality only becomes more robust.  

Before physical space arose, there had to exist a potential for space.  If there was a potential for space, there would have been a potential for everything else.... even for love and persons.  It is that primordial Potentia that I refer to as the Monad.  

Persons, though, I say, are privileged above all else wrt the Monad.  Personhood is a pluripotent logical package.  It is the logical microcosm of the Monad.  

We apply symmerty breaking to the Monad, and we get a family or communion of persons, bound together by the cosmic glue of love.  Thus do you have a trinity or olympiad.

Then comes the concept of a forum, of a level playing field, and so we have the concept of space and time..... of physis, of nature and all that.  

But what is nature?  Is it some new substance.......?  

No, we simply apply additional symmerty breaking.  Holding persons together, we had love.  Holding nature together, we have the Logos.... we have logic, mathematicis and physics..... and the biological and physical microcosms of cells and atoms.  

From the Monad, it's microcosms all the way down.  

The microcosms are self-organizing through the agency of the Logos.

The symmerty breaking is part of the Logos.  Persons embody the Logos.  We all are the pluripotent seeds of the Logos.  So is everything else.  


10:30---------

The atoms are the ultimate seeds.  They refer directly back to the Logos.  No microcosm has any existence independent of the Logos.  

Ultimately, or logically, there is only one atom and one person wrt the Monad.  The plurality is our primary illusion.  And there is only one logoi, or one primordial word...... the Tetragrammaton.... YHWH.... I am that I am, if you will.  

The creationists and scientists don't get it.  They both err on the material or dualistic side of the truth.  They just don't get the logic of monism.  With their atomisms, they grasp for monism.  They have the tail end of the Monad.  They suppose that the tail wags the dog.  


Perhaps I've neglected the ultimate symmerty..... conformal symmerty.  Why ultimate?  

Physicists think of conformal symmerty as being an aspect of the nothingness of pure space.  I'm suspecting that space is an aspect of conformality.  What then is conformality?  


12:30--------

Well, the topic changed rather quickly from conformality to self-organized criticality (SOC).

What does SOC say about microcosms and/or space......?



(cont.)

The microcosmic hypothesis speaks to direct perception, conformality, fractality, SOC, 3 levels, sapience, morphic resonance (MR), etc........  It speaks to virtually everything.  Is there anything behind it?  

It's hard to think of any aspect of the BPW that it does not relate to.



(cont.)

What is the microcosm about?  How and why?  

It has mainly to do with the interpersonalism of personalism.  Persons are the mini/max of all existence.  In a strong sense, we are mini-Monads.  The more orthodox would say that we are created in the image of the Creator, but then they drop it.  

I refer to persons as co-Creators, but maybe I should say co-creators.  I also am, virtually by default, a jesus-freak.  At the least, he incarnated the Logos, as none other.  He incarnated the logos-spermatikos.  

In the trinity and olympiad, he would be the first among equals.... Mr Personality, you might say.  All else was impersonal, if you can say that anything was so.  Was the Monad so?  

The Monad, above all, is totipotent.  In that sense, but only in that sense, it would be supra-personal.  There cannot be an isolated person.  In that sense the Monad would be impersonal.  But, by that same token, any peson is a microcosm of that totipotency.  

Then we have two other levels of microcosm to deal with..... cells and atoms.....

They are the logical minimum of material substance, and they are the carriers of genetic info.  They carry a proto-indivual thumbprint, also by logical necessity.  The details of any genetic code could be fractally dictated in the dimesion of deep/logical time.  

Then cells are logical atoms of metabolism.... of the ecosystem.... of the tree of life.  Atoms make no sense, outside of that metabolic context.  Atoms, then, are mainly abstacted from cells.... from the logic of life.  

We might also say that, along with the 'I am....', they are the logoi-spermatikos.  They are the substantial handles of the UIL, especially wrt anthropics.  Also they are the impersonal aspect of katechon.  

It is their marvelous semi-potency that keep us so distracted from the bigger picture, with technology and all... the Totipotency, that is.  It's how we practice our creatorship, in ignorance and bliss.  

It's by means of the atoms that we complete the logical circle of the UIL = UEM+info+logos.  

It is the UIL that clues us into the deep/logical dimension of time, of 2dT.  It should, by the same token, be clueing us to the ATO.  But we don't see it, because we don't see the HMT of it.  

Along with Whitehead, part of the PPKHWTB, we don't think about the mystery of the monism of the consensual present (MCP).  We just take it for granted.  Parmenides understood the One, better than any Westerners have since.  The Easterners get it, with their Advaita Vedanta, but they have no clue about the eternality of history.... about it's essentiality.  Well, I'm sure that many guessed it, but many more suppressed it.  The caste system was their Katechon.  

Hey, their Castechon + our Technichon = the Katechon.  You see how entrenched it's been, historically.  

That's what we're up against.  It is deep seated, personally.  


1:15-------

It occurs to me that the Truman Show is an acting out of the Flamarion engraving.  There are many on the internet who think the engraving is about Giordano Bruno, but they have it just backwards.  Us poor moderns, we have our heads stuck in a planetarium/telescope.  

And I think my hunch is correct.... the microcosm is essential to the whole mnemonic..... even the 3 or 4 levels of the microcosm, from Monad to Atom.  

How does the microcosm explain the UEM.....?

The UEM is an essential part of the level playing field.  It is the katechon wrt or PK abilities.  Mathematics is the impersonal side of the Logos.  

For one thing, numbers are precise only under the aegis of infinity.  We think of infinity as being transcendental, even in the qualitive sense, but it's more like the numerical katechon.  I'm a constructivist.  But I do appreciate the pseudo-coherence of Platonist math.  

The pseudo-transcendence has been the ruin of many a poor mathematician, bless their hearts.  Cantor sensed the problem.  He saw their katechon for what it was.  

Postmodern, many-valued logic is making its inroads.  I should point to post-Godelian math..... this is math that takes the observer into account.  His incompleteness theorem defeated the Russel/Whithead vision of an independent, Platonic math.  Whithead learned his lesson.  

The quantum realm is where that Platonism breaks down.  

The quantum realm ensures the efficacy of the participatory world (PW).  Anthropics is PK on a cosmic scale.  So we have the microcosm and morphic resonance (uC/MR).  

The Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is another area where Platonism is transcended.  

This may seem like a long way from the metamorphosis of the noosphere (mMN) and the Rapture.  With the MoAPS, all that will come into view.  


4pm---------

The pokotok game requires the UEM.  Microcosmics is the whole point of pokotomics.  Microcosmics => UEM.  

How does microcosmics imply the direct perception hypothesis (DPH)....?

Well, the Cs has access to the uCs, which has access to the CuCs.  Berkeley's tree on the quad is just the incarnation of the platonic acorn.  

What else is new.......?  

I think I've about covered the spectrum of the mnemonic.  The implication is that the logic of microcosmics rules the roost.  

Well, first comes personalism => microcosmics => everything else.  I don't think this is obvious.  It's taken me 40 years.  With the help of the mnemonic, I should be able to explain it in about 40'.  Any questions?  


5:45---------

I think I can do the mnemonic from memory........

PK HMT/ATO UIL 1550 CS2 Co2 P2LS [uC/MR 2dT] MB PPKHWB ()() mMN SM/PW TS

1550 = MDL = MCP DPH LS

CS2 = CDA SB Cs uCs CuCs CCs

()() = (BPW.... (4M/K....)) ((3-o) = Apo AZO/X/QRP LIBO).

I forgot..... uC/MR 2dT.  They are essential.  So there is 4th '2' after first three.  

Anyone who wants to get serious about the BPWH should have the mnemonic memorized. Then be able to explain the significance of each of the pieces.



(cont.)

With the mnemonic in tow, I can more easily see what's missing.....

Metanarrative, SOC, disclosure, sapi/senti (euk/prok), can/chrys, SST.....

Disclosure = UTH (-ETH) phenom MoAPS 32V(Sep)

SOC applied to the brain undermines most conventional views.  

The eukaryotic/prokaryotic distinction recaps the sapient/sentient distinction.  

Choice btw cancer and chrysalis.  Chrys goes w/ mMN.  

mN, metanarrative, goes w/ Co2 (CohTT), CTC, etc........

SST = single soul theory, goes w/ monism & uC


Maybe I should start a second mnemonic......

Dis mN SOC Can/Chr S:S/E:P SST

Dis mN CaCh SOC SSEP SST

I could also resume my review of old blogs, maybe starting with the archive of OMF 1 just looking for topics.  


12:10---------

I'm looking in Archive 2....... there are now actually some pictures...... but I'm still having trouble navigating.  

The main problem is that I can't get beyond the first of four index pages for the dansmithsom section.  I would need to be able to guess the URLs.  I can navigate by hand, once I establish a page designation, but there is none such for the first page of the index section.  

Pman has been volunteering with the archives.  I'll get back to him in due course.  

It occurs to me that, with clever use of google search, I might be able to reconstruct some of the URLs.  


In the meantime, I can reconsider some outstanding problems.....

In the early stages of my immaterialism, I would be fairly indiscriminate in my concerns.  To wit..... I was particularly concerned with Samuel Johnson's 'stone along the path' which, quite notoriously, he kicked, thereby claiming to refute Berkeley's immaterialism.  

I'll admit that I was not terribly concerned with Sam's poor toe.... served him right!  I was more concerned with the provenance, or pedigree, if you will, of the stone.  What are my concerns, looking back.....?

How do we get from pet rocks, to loose gravel, to ice chunks on Pluto? Does God have to identify every hair on our head or grain of sand on the beach, or star in the sky, for that matter?



(cont.)

Houston, we have a detritus problem.....

I hadn't thought of it in this general manner, but holism is the name of this game.  A bigger problem has bigger solutions.  

Idealists shouldn't have to cry over spilled milk.  But how can we not?  

That's the way the cookie crumbles, but which way is that, we'd like to know?

I would like to say randomly, but it's not. It's much more complicated. This is where the individuality of the cookie stands out.

(cont.)

Do we have a detritus problem......?  

That's too specific.  We have an existential problem.  Descartes go it wrong...... I think, therefore I am.  What he meant to say was.... I think, therefore love is.  Or better..... love thinks.  

Berkeley said that to be is to be perceived.  I would say that to perceive is to perceive.  

Berkeley would say that the tree exists only when perceived.  I say that the tree never exists.  Love exists.  Get used to it... get over it.  

This has always been understood in the East..... the existence part, not the love part.  This is Advaita Vedanta.... non-dualism, especially between subject and object.  

Instead of love, they have nirvana, but isn't it about the same thing?  It's the Parmedian One.    

The reason for cracks in the pavement and sand on the beach.... the sole purpose is to incarnate love.  Love would not be complete without our incarnation of it.  Platonic love is wonderful, but that's not the whole story of love, now, is it?  

Would love be complete without sand in our shoes?  I seriously doubt it.  

Would love be complete without grass growing... without leaves falling?  

This is not really the problem......

The real problem is the lawn clippings on the driveway.  But what actually is the lawn-clippings-on-the-driveway problem?  Are not the clippings, thereby, asserting their absolute, independent existence.... from me, from love?  

I don't know about your lawn clippings, but mine don't make assertions, I don't think.  So, who asserts.... who thinks?  It's hard to get away from the Cartesian problem.  

A robin come and pecks at the grass seeds lying in the driveway.  Isn't that sufficient reification?  Or, perchance, is that just an example of relational existence?  I suggest the lattter.  

Hey, everything has a place, and there's a place for everything.  But is that a social statement about staying in one's place?  Hmmm....... I'm told that folks have married for money.  That just proves that money talks louder than love.  Hmmm..... again.  

Hey, again..... A lot of things talk louder than love.  

But guess what..... love is patient.... it will get you in the End.  It will get you, fair and square.  You can dodge a bullet.... you can dodge the draft, but can you dodge love?  Braggarts do, for a while.  

Lawn clippings may know only one thing.... they know their place.  Atoms know their place even better.  They know it so well that they can be in two places at once..... I kid you not.  


11:20---------

How do lawn clippings know their place?  How does anything know anything?  Nothing actually does.  All knowlege is representational.  I don't believe in re-presentation.  I only believe in the present.... in the presence of the One.  

Fortunately, lawn clippings are not like atoms and electrons, they cannot be in two places at once.  Like most other objects, though, they have to be some place, at some time.  Also, unlike atoms, they are not shape-shifting or place-shifting.  But do they know that?  

They don't have to.  They don't have to know much about geography.  It's like with the photons.... they don't have to know much about trigonometry.... maybe they do have to know Leibniz' least action principle.  

But, hey, the LAP is quite similar to the MAP, which, in its turn, is similar to the BPW.  Nothing knows anything.... everything knows everything.  

That's just microcosmics at work, and play, if you grok on Lila.  

Hey..... now I'm sounding like a pantheist.... not that there's anything wrong with that...... Might the panentheists miss out on the Rapture.  Gosh, I hope not.  Hey, they didn't miss out on the Holocaust.  Might they not wonder if there was a flip-side.  I do.  I know that the deepest shadows come just before the dawn.  The dawn is imprinted on our biological clocks.  So are our telomeres.  

And, if you care to check, so is the Telos.  Are the pantheists tone deaf?  No.  They know, better than you or me, that love is patient.  


12:30---------

When will they understand that love is patient......?

No..... when will I understand?  

Is there, really, a difference?  

Not if I'm in the right ballpark?  

There is a path to understanding, and someone will see it first.  I think I would get a kick from being that someone.  Most of us would.  Only a few might not.  But most don't know what it would be like to understand and/or they would be sore afraid.  It would take a lot of coaching for them to even imagine.  

It's all about Wigner's friend..... the second person to observe or understand.  That's the cosmic bottleneck.  My kingdom for........


So, in summary.......

PK HMT/ATO UIL 1550 CS2 Co2 P2LS 2dT MR uC MB ()() mMN SM  TS

CC D Sap mN

That was pretty good.  

How could I leave out PPKHWTB?  Also SOC SSEP SST.  I don't remember what SST was.  

Ooops..... that's the single soul theory.  

I should keep uC/MR together.  I forgot PW.... SM/PW.  

I have to remember that D=Dis includes quite a bit.  


The takeaway from today is that the UEM of UIL is really about the uC/MR.... is about knowing your place or function.  Maybe Aristotle got this, first.  It's about teleology and the hidden hand.  

The grass seed wanted to be on the driveway.... for the robin.... for.....?  

Yes, the UEM is really about microcosmics and teleonomics..... at its very simplest or most complex, depending on how you look at it.  

It was a long detour through science to get all the way back to Aristotle.  We can better appreciate his insight.  The Telos is in all those details.  We appreciate how even the most insignificant detail is a miracle.  We can learn that much from the LHC and LIGO.... it shook the Earth by a millionth the diameter of a proton, and outshone  the entire universe, in that split second of collapse.... the very idea of it.  


3:15--------

I get goose bumps just thinking about it, and I don't even believe in black holes.  I suggested that the LIGO 'tweet' was the PK of all the scientists who do believe.  

But so is the Sunrise.... or is it the anticipation of the roosters crowing?  Which is more important for the Sunshine.... roosters or scientists?  

Sapience: sentience = eukariote : prokaryote.  (SSEP).

1 scientist = 100 roosters?  But that's not quite the way that PK works.  It's not brute force.  How does it work?  It works teleolgically, like everything else.  It's also like morphic resonance (MR).  It's a very special way of going with the flow.  The Telos becomes aware of itself through us.  Roosters.... not so much.  The Monad must have a soft spot for us.  All microcosms are equal.... but....

It has to do with self-organized criticality (SOC)..... and we spend a lot more time thinking about roosters than they think about us, or even about themselves.  But it's not brute time, either.  Or complexity, for that matter.  

The criticality is interpersonal.  That's where it counts.  The rest of the SOC is a metaphoric shadow.  We get wired... the roosters don't want wires.  We can support an mMN.... a metamorphosis of the Noosphere.  We are pregnant with the noosphere.  

Roosters.... not so much.



(cont.)

I forget where I put my car keys, but the keys don't forget.  They stay put.  I might never find them again.  They are not a figment of my mind.  They are an interpersonal figment.  They will disappear at the Omega.  The aborginal Earth and artifacts will reappear.  

The Earth is an interpersonal figment, but it is a part of deep/logical time.  It is the deep end of our play-pool.  We do not reuse it.  The singular time circuit has a minimal discontinuity.  

Will I loose the same set of keys again?  No.  We only go around this best possible world (BPW) once.  But nothing is lost or forgotten.  

But there are some things I wish I could forget.  

I won't remember that I lost my keys, but God will.  

God has direct perception, as do we all, but God's is eternal.  We all become one with the One.  

God's direct perception is what we call the world.  Can God imagine things that don't ever exist?  Can't she imagine unicorns?  Sure.  All imagination is shared in the End.  

When I look at a photograph, what am I directly perceiving.... or when I look at a cartoon?  


3:20---------

If of a person, I'm perceiving part of a soul.  If of an animal or object.... ditto.... even if filtered through another soul.  

A tree or rock has a soul....?  It has a form.  It has an essence, no matter how generic.  If individuated, it is by us.  

Maybe even it's essence is ganted by us.  


6pm---------

My handle on the Rapture is pretty shaky.  It is the discontinuity to end all discontinuites.  It's purpose, however, is to maximize the overall continuity of the CTC.  

Leading up to the big R, we have the mMN, the metamorphosis of the noosphere.  The mMN comprises a more porous reality and a more robust altering of Cs, both spontaneous and otherwise.  

These are both symptoms of our entrainment into the orbit of the
Attractor/Telos.  The CTC, itself, is just such an orbit, but, after the MoAPS, the proximity of the Telos becomes manifest locally.  The Rapture is just the culmination of this process.  

The internet is our technological stepping stone to the mMN.  

Can you opt out of this process?  Sure, you can get yourself off the grid.  You can complete the CTC with the rest of the flora and fauna.  You will be the ultimate tree-huggers.  You will be an essential part of the natural continuity.  The rest of us will hardly look back.  The ~144M will leave in 12 mega-Arks, and the ~144K will return in the meso-Arks to become our ancestors.  If you can imagine a more natural continuity, you are welcome to it.  

This is the bare outline of the metanarrative of historical time. All the rest is deep/logical time.

What is the biggest gap in the logic and narrative?



(cont.)

Look, Ma, no holes.....!

After some 40 years, the gaps in the logic of the BPWH are fairly evenly distributed.  We cannot say the same for the scientifc world view (SWV).  There is a glaring gap wrt all things mental, which, as far as most of us are concerned, is just about everything.  

How does science get away with its seeming hegemony on truth, while, in fact, it ignores the crux of the matter?  

It assumes that we're an accident, and then spends four centuries trying to prove it.  

The scientific community gets away with this because they have no competition.  Their only significant competition comes from the scriptural literalists.  The rest of us are stuck between the rock and the hard place.  


4pm-------

It's all about the coherence theory of truth (CohTT- Co2) and the meaning of rationality.  Science upholds a reductionist/analytical view of truth..... the correspondence theory of truth (CorTT).  This reductionist theory meshes closely with the strong version of AI (SAI).  It also fits closely with the digital version of informationalism.  

The AI engineers simply ignore the philosophical literature on the profound distinctions between artificial and natural intelligence.  The philosopers are also to blame for not pressing this crucial distinction with their academic counterparts.  It is simply a case of live and let live, in academia.  The digital economy is much too big to fail.  

That there very possibly exist profound differences, has not been ignored in the popular literature, however.  Just google on artificial v human intelligence.  There is no cover-up of this probable conclusion.  But no one seems inclined to make a cosmic case of it.  Thomas Nagel did, for a short while, but is no longer pressing the issue.  

Christof Koch, an eminent materialist, however, has an article that is, surprisingly balanced and cautionary on this topic....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-artificial-intelligence-surpass-our-own/ .  

I'm speculating that there is a preponderance of scientists who would oppose the transhumanist imperative, even if they see it as inevitable.  

Apparently, though, no one sees this as a priority threat, certainly not in the near-term.  

The wiki entry on the philosophy of AI is also a balanced one.  

Ok, so I take back my statement on the lack of dialogue.  But we're still not asking about the metaphysical ramifications.  This question is, by default, left to the theologians.  


7:45---------

The SAI hypothesis is seen as mainly a technical issue.  It's not seen as an existential/ontological issue.  It's too academic for that.  The soul question is not generally raised in this context.  

But, right in the wiki article, Turing says, quite sensibly, that if God doesn't want us to create souls, we won't.  There you have it.  

The question is, how long can we wait to find out?  That this might become an urgent question in the near-term is what I'm suggesting.  

Is God demanding that we take an existential gamble?  No.  Nor would she want us to duck the issue indefinitely.  At some point, most of us will be expected to exercise a mustard seed of faith.  We do it all the time.  That's what love is about.  

See this article........

Artificial Intelligence and the Soul - Russell C. Bjork


9pm--------

It is a good article, but his main purpose is to downplay the issue. He claims that SAI would make no difference to theological questions, no matter how it is resolved. In the end he simply warns against idolatry.

Basically, he's saying that questions of science and theology can be compartmentalized. In practice, his view will be harmless. In some sense, he is part of the katechon, but, if so, it is not deliberate on his part.

I'm rather sure that he has no intention to interfere in God's work. Rather, he might have a better case against my doing so!



(cont.)

It should come down to a discussion between the transhumanists and the theologians, but neither side even recognizes the existence of the other.  It's two ships passing in the night.  

The transhumanists suppose that our silicon descendants become as gods.... it's just that they have no clue about monism or even holism.  They are digi-freaks.  They don't even understand informationalism.  You'd think that they might understand about virtual reality and the holographic paradigm.  But no.... no such luck.

Well, I'm sure that individuals see the hand writing on the wall, but, like me, they have no venue.  If there were a venue, the glass ceiling would already have been broken.... the BPW would already be upon us.  I got lucky with Catfish, early on, but, with those Vectors, push came to shove, and.... the hatches were battened down.  

Everybody's just waiting for Godot.  So now you can call me mini-prometheus.... trying to steal lightning.  


Yes, Virginia, the truth has no place.... it has no standing.  

Should we be surprised?  I'm not.  It's all part of the plan.  It's all part of the katechon.  You'd better believe that God wants to play chicken with us, relative to the Disclosure.  She will wait till the last possible moment and, then, keep waiting.  Only when most of us have surrendered all hope, will she know that her time has come around.  

And then what......?  

A butterfly in Africa will flap it's wings.  The perfect Noospheric storm will organize itself.  

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
   The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
   Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
   Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
   The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
   The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
   The best lack all conviction, while the worst
   Are full of passionate intensity.

   Surely some revelation is at hand;
   Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
   The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
   When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
   Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
   A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
   A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
   Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
   Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

   The darkness drops again but now I know
   That twenty centuries of stony sleep
   Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
   And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
   Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Will anyone ever say it better......?  


How puny, all our little games must seem.  But we do see, even if through a glass darkly.  We feel the great attractor in the sky.... somewhere in our CuCs.   Underneath it all, we can feel the Apocatasis.  In retrospect, it will be glaring.  Well, Yeats surely saw it.  

Am I capable of losing all hope?  It does become more difficult, but I will not bare my chest to God's storm.  I will avert my gaze.... in the end.  


11:30-------

Now I see the Way Back Machine........

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://lucianarchy.proboards.com/*

It says it has 13K pages captured from Lucianarchy.  That was the original domain for OM.  I guess I could have fun playing with that.  

And let us not forget.......

http://www.bestpossibleworld.com/index06.htm

Along with.......

http://www.bestpossibleworld.com/aAquarium/content.html

And then there's.......

http://best-possible.wikia.com/wiki/Best_Possible_Wiki

I thought there were other urls accessible from there.  Yes, but this is a complete list.  That's probably 3K webpages, or about 10K+ written pages.  Well, at least I've been keeping out of most other kinds of trouble.  

Hey, and, now that I have my mnemonic, I don't need no darned 10K pages.  It's all between my two little ears.  That's the benefit of Co2.  Well, it's Per Mon Hol mN.... you name it..... it's like taking candy from a baby.  


2pm---------

I've been neglecting the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), usually credited to Leibniz, although it had been around, long before.  

Things remain as is, unless disturbed.  This would particularly include cycles of things.  

The quantum realm might seem to disobey this dictum, but it does so mainly to provide stability, such as to atoms.  

The PSR does have some logical overlap with Leibniz' other principles.  

More generally, and especially in the best possible world, there is a reason for everything.  There are no accidents.  

If you look at the PSR more holistically, you are liable to see many other connections........

1.)  Everything is related..... relationalism.  

2.)  There is no vacuum to accommodate the swerving of atoms.  

a.)  The world is a plenum.... a pleroma.  

It seems that I should include the PSR in the mnemonic.  It could easily replace the PII and/or the PLA.  

3.)  Does not the PSR lead to rational panentheism, which is the whole ball of wax.  

Hey, we've got ourselves a new mnemonic..... PSR!!  How could I have been missing this for so long?  It must be the katechon.  

It obviously covers sapience and, thereby, personhood.  

It covers the katechon and every other sin!  According to the stats, there was no one here to see that tree fall.  I guess it was too big to fall..... and just when I thought things were coming under control.  

Particularly, the PSR covers the SWH.  The BPWH goes without saying.  

SST..... sure.  The PSR covers Occam's Razor, as well.  

I can't see anything it doesn't cover.  Can you?  

What about the 4M.....?  That might be a bit of a stretch.  But, no, I'd argue for the simplicity of it all.  Let us not forget Craig Dilworth.  

PK HMT/ATO UIL 1550........ = PSR!!


4:50--------

The PSR fell out of use after the Eighteenth century, from its previous overuse.  

The SEP has a good article, which I had better look at.....

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause. This simple demand for thoroughgoing intelligibility yields some of the boldest and most challenging theses in the history of metaphysics and epistemology.

Hmmm.......

It would have been Darwin who made the biggest dent in the PSR.


9:50----------

Like fish swimming in water, we don't see the PSR.  Almost everyone saw it, though, until Darwin came along.  He saw it perfectly clearly.  It was all the little Darwinians who became myopic.  

But God must love chaos, otherwise she wouldn't have created so much of it.  

We have to understand SOC.  We swim in the water of reason, but we live on the knife-edge between order and chaos.  That is our freedom.  But what _is_ our freedom?  Well, guess what, we are free to love.  But that is all.  

And even love, in the End, it's not free, is it?  Sorry 'bout that, all you wall-flowers out there!  

Yes, we have SOC.... self-organized criticality.   It's the SOC that makes possible the PSR.  Or, quite possibly, it's the other way around. That's the case for us, immaterialists.  

Am I claiming that my brain cells are more free than me?  Kinda, yes.  

But their freedom is generic.  Ours is individual.... personal.  

And what is free will?  It's not random.  Freud taught us that much, but Jung taught us more.  There is the hidden hand of the CuCs.... the great attractor in the Sky.  


Speaking of the PSR, what's with the PII and all the atoms? The electrons are all identical, but there are many, because they go back and forth in time, kinda like our souls. Leibniz didn't understand about CTCs and fermions. Now we can just whale on the PSR.

It has been said that the PSR makes experience possible. Ok. That's what I mean to say about the DPH, direct perception hypothesis. With the DPH, we really are swimming in the PSR. Do you get that? Good, maybe you can 'splain it to me!

To be perfectly candid, I never understood the DPH, but maybe I'm beginning to. Hey, we're just fish outa water, don't ya know? Enough....?

How is the PSR going to help me with optics.....?

To my little mind, optics is harder than atoms or stars.  But how could we play pokotok w/o optics?  Necessity is the mother of invention.  Sure, but how does it work?  

Optics and space are practically synonymous.  Can't have one without the other.  We've asked before about the speed of light.  Almost instantaneous.  Why finite?  Wigner's UEM would look silly without that finitude.  The UEM/UIL is a crucial part of the PSR.  I might as well ask.... how space!  Space has a lot to do with symmerty.  Symmerty breaking (SB) is a crucial part of PET, Plotinus' emanation theory.  Ok, is that good enough for gummint work?  We just have to consider these things holistically.  

Also, I've mentioned the visual aspect of dreams.... very few non-visual dreams.  We swim in God's dream.... that's the PSR.  It may also have to do with informationalism.  How better to convey information, considering the other senses.  One picture.....

But, then, we do have to get back to the DPH and felt meaning.  The visuals are icing on the meaning-cake, if you catch the drift.  The PSR is about reasons, after all.... not about pictures, per se.  

Again, there's little question about the benefits of optics.... but how are they possible?  Clearly, they're not impossible.... so, ask no further?  

Better do that again.......  How does an idealist/immaterial optics work?  How can we have optics without the reification of photons and electrons, i.e. without a full blown QED, quantum electrodynamics?  (That just rolls off the tongue.)  


11:30---------

Is this a fair question........?  I don't think I'm being fair to myself.  

I'm asking the questions that scientists want me to ask.  I'm playing by their rules.  It's a no win situation.  


1pm-------

Scientists are avoiding the hard questions.  They hardly even acknowledge them.  We have never gotten beyond the Cartesian theater.  What appears to us is a 3D movie, but there is no movie screen in our heads.  What is in our heads?  Electrical signals.  I'm struggling to answer the 'hard' question.... the impossible question.... what is consciousness?  

They try to kick the question downstairs.  I'm trying to kick it upstairs.  

I start from the unity of consciousness and work outwards.  They start with the sense data and try to reconstruct the unity.  


2:45--------

The CPU in the sky might be running an object oriented program, of some sort.  We sapients participate in the individuation of the objects, which would include ourselves.  

Do the individual objects exist in our individual minds?  By Occam's razor, there are no individual minds.  We are all time-sharing on the one CPU.  We are the dumb terminals, so to speak.  

Our individual genius is a just a step-down transformer, if you like.  

The problem of consciousness is not a biological problem.... it's a cosmic problem.  Biology is an artifact of Cs.... not the other way around.  

Of course, there is as likely to be distributed intelligence.... there is one cosmic program that runs in parallel on our individual processors.  The truth of the matter is likely to be some combination of the above.  

And, do KIM, that almost none of this transpires in real time.  Time is the ultimate illusion.  That's mainly why I'm skeptical of free will.  

Yes, free will is crucial, but it may not be quite what it seems.  God knows what it actually is.  

It's rather difficult to imagine free will, sub-specie aeternitas.  I'll give you a clue..... it has something to do with love.  

Love is the ultimate katechon and anti-katechon.  It's tricky.  It's the only thing........

You start with optics and it leads back to love.  All roads lead to Rome.  All problems must be put in their proper context.  As long as we keep our eyes on the prize, the other challenges will fall into place, rather like the leaves off a tree.  They do not have to solve the tensor calculus of general relativity.  They don't have to solve the quantum infrared problem of virtual gravitons.  All they have to do is act naturally.  I know.... easier said than done.  

Yes, there is a kind of morphic resonance for all the natural cycles.  It's part of the object orientation.  

We abstract photons from vision.  They are a strictly collective phenomon.  Only in the lab do we count them.  Yes, for the technically inclined, they are bosons.  They have zero individuality.  


4:45--------

The PSR still stands.......

We all participate in the cosmic reason of the PSR.  The PSR is intersubjective, with a vengeance.  Personalism falls out, quite naturally.  So do holism and monism.  

More than anything else, darwinism rang its death knell.  Yes, you do need to read Nagel's Mind&Cosmos.  Do note that mind comes before cosmos.  


Once again, the search is on for gaps in the logic.  I mean, we're looking for the biggest gap.  It's not a bad game.... too bad that I have to play it on my own.  


6pm--------

Ok, try this........

How does the DPH stack up against the LIGO tweet.....?  

What, exactly, was observed.... directly?  

Off the top, I'd say that we were observing the backs of our own heads.  And this goes for everything else.  When I chalk LIGO up to PK, it amounts to about the same thing.  

LIGO presents us with an extreme case of this very general rule.  

Everything is a metaphor for the Monad.  It's like this.......

The Monad, according to Plotinus, functions as a white hole.... kind of like a big-bang.  A black hole is just the reverse.  The tweet presented the inverse metaphor.  

I.e., we were just seeing the backside of the Monad. No wonder it was such big news!



(cont.)

How does an immaterialist account for the common cold, without the reification of a full-blown cellular/viral dynamics?  In the 'good old days', sickliness could be taken as a sign of sinfulness, for instance.  This is still the case with Christian Science.  How do I suppose otherwise?  

This may not be too much of a challenge......

Normative cellular dynamics is abstacted, like everything else.  The common cold could also be said to be normative, in its own way.  We then have the problem of symmerty breaking..... who ends up with the cold, and by which virus?  

Fractal dynamics comes into play, as with individuality in any natural population.  Am I saying that causes are only generic, and not specific?  A particular virus invades a particular cell.  No?  

Yes and no......  Abstractly, yes.... but......


2:15--------

An individual sperm cell impregnates an individual egg cell, and each of us is the individual proof of that.



(cont.)

Zygote ~ Monad.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.  This has to do with deep/logical v historical time.

Katechon = scientific materialism ~ cocoon.

Symmetry breaking ~ ontogeny.  


9:20---------

Yes, I'll stick with the zygote as a metaphor for the Monad.  But what to do with all that DNA?  Is it a metaphor for the logos?  I'm inclined to go with that.  

And we certainly needn't forget the logos spermatikos.  

How about ontogeny and phylogeny?  The embryo is like the old Earth, deep time and evolution.  With advanced potentials and the Telos, the phylogeny can readily be reconstructed, as orthogonal to the historical CTC.  

What about the photons and photosynthesis?  Are we back to reification?  


11:15--------

The arguments, from thermal decoherence, against quantum biology do not take into account morphic resonance, among other things.  Photosynthesis is a thoroughly quantum phenomenon, for instance.  Ultimately, the quantum is just another metaphor, but it can be a useful tool to get us beyond thinking of mechanical atoms.  

With the Monad hovering in the background, the reification of the zygote need not be a compromise to materialism.  

And what about all that stuff that transpires in the egg-cell, especially once it's been fertilized?  How much can be chalked up to metaphor?  How many of those processes afford us more insight into the workings of the Monad.... into the process of emanation, symmerty breaking and informatics?  

We are microcosms.... so are the cell and atom.... even, or especially, as abstacted as they are.  

For instance, I'd be surprised if the functioning of the mitotic spindle was not a reflection of the CTC construct.  You recall the analogy of constructing a suspension bridge, suspended between the Alpha and Omega.  Here the spark gap and chasm are reversed.  


1pm--------

You might check out the wiki entry on mitosis, and follow up on some of the subtopics.  

Cellular processes are highly orchestrated, yet there is no control center.  Are cells not a prime example of self-organized criticality (SOC).... like us and every other living thing, especially including societies.  

There is no reason to suppose that the Monad is not an SOC, where there is the entire added dimension of potentiality, out of which comes the logical dimesion of deep time.  
----------

I would suggest that SOC provides a perfect medium for processes like entanglement and morphic resonance to play out.  Do KIM, though, that I'm not taking processes like Ent or MR literally.  I'm using them as metaphors for something much more immaterial/metaphysical.  

I'm substituting the PSR for mechanical causation, among other things.  

The biggest criticism against the PSR, in its day, was that you could explain too much with it. Ok, then, how about just explaining everything?  


4pm---------

SOC, entanglement, weak measurements, morphic resonance, advanced potentials, teleology all have an overlap with each other.  

The mere fact of our intentionality, gives very substantial credence to the pervasiveness of this factor throughout nature.  And, then, with panpsychism, how far are we from panentheism?  The political hurdle would be much greater than the conceptual one.  

The Monadic Telos is the ultimate source of all teleology.  It projected from us, through us, onto the rest of nature.  

The UEM is pan-mathematicism. We suppose that the UEM has no relation to panpsychism. We don't ask for the link between math and matter, as we do between mind and matter. Are they not equally mysterious connections, both of a similar nature?

(cont.)

It turns out that there is no link between math and matter, simply because there is no matter, to speak of.  It's mathematics all the way down.  This was the point of the Higgs boson.... even its massiveness came out as a mathematical feature of the standard model.  

With regard to matter, we have mathematical monism.  Well, mathematics does not account for the clumpiness of matter.  That aspect has to do with the symmetry breaking of space.... if you believe in space, that is.  


Back to the PSR......

The PSR affords us with a sort of plenum.  IMHO, the PSR abhors a vacuum.  The space that is accessible to us is just for us to have a level playing field... for there to be societies of persons.  Outer space....?  Nah.  It's for cosmetic purposes, and to afford us with blue-sky dreams, while we're waiting for Godot.  

Instead of a vacuum, we have the aether.  The aether is full of potential, relations, entanglement.  

It should be clear that the PSR implies a cosmic self or Monad.  It should also imply the Logos, and vice-versa.  But might there also be brute objects?  No.  I think that the PSR implies a panpsychism emanating from the Monad.  

The microcosmic aspect of everything is implied by the Logos and the holism of language.  The ecosystem is an expression of this holism.  

I've been trying to remember what I had in mind last night.  It was holographics.  This is a perfect analogy to the idea of the microcosm.  We have the holographic brain, world and universe.  This is a way to.implement the UEM and the Logos.  

By the same token that we have a holism of language, we also have a holism or organicity of mathematics.  


12:30---------

The idea of holographics also applies to the concept of cycles within cycles, within the CTC.  

With the PSR, holographics, zygote/Monad, we have another handle on the mnemonic.

(cont.)

Surely, much worse than atoms and zygotes, for the immaterialist, is the Sun.....

I've toyed with the Sun on numerous occasions, but, no, I hardly expect to be able to satisfy the hard-core materialist with holistic blandishments.  More to the point is whether I can satisfy myself.  Yes, sports fans, the Sun does keep me awake at night.  

People used to think we needed to pray for the Sun to come up in the morning.  Me......?  I pray that, on E-day, it won't.... at least, for those of us who choose to not stay behind.  Tall order.......

Do I have any fresh ammunition.....?  Is the PSR going to keep the Sun from shining on E-day?  Hmmm......

Before attempting to turn it off, let's see if we can turn it on.......

Time to roll out the big gun........ the Monad......  

Yes, not unlike the Zygote, the Sun is just a big metaphor... but in the sky, though.  Lucy in the Sky.....?  Sort of.  More like Horus.....

When I first started playing this game, way back when, my first approximation to Creation was a terrarium.  But God saw the terrarium, and said, Hmmm....... I bet I can do better than that......

Long story, short..... instead of a sunlamp, we get a Sun.  And our Sun comes with an added feature..... spots.  

Hey, don't get me wrong.  I cut my physics teeth on Chandrasekhar's solar model.  It is beautiful, in its simplicity.  

But, still, you really don't want to go up against the Monad, when it comes to simplicity.  The Monad invented simplicity.... and, just maybe, it invented the Sun, too.  We've already bet the farm on that horse..... errr..... Horus.  

It has to do with the Can/Chrys dichotomy......  Yes, the nervous nellies amongst us have their knickers in a knot wrt the cancer scenario.  They are just being more objective than the the rest of us.  

3/18--------

1:20---------

Enroute to Tampa........

I'm being intersubjective.  Others.....?  Well, I guess that many are living for the short term. Longer term.....?  That's above their pay-grade.  ISIS finds that Armageddon is a selling point.  
So, besides the C/C dichotomy, there are other options......  Well, the only identifiable group with the Chrysalis opinion are the Teilhardians, TBMK.  Teilhard is one of my big seven....... PPKHWTB.  

The Transhumanists have their own version of a miracle..... the technological Singularity.  Of course, to them, it's not a miracle..... it's just progress in overdrive.  

Many others would agree with me, to the extent that they figure that we just might get lucky, and someone or something will pull our iron out of the fire.  They are among the silent majority who don't totally swallow that bit about the primordial soup.  

Immaterialism anyone........?  Nah.......  we don't look that crazy, do we?  

So, ok, most folks would not accept the C/C dichotomy..... just don't ask them to elaborate.  Hey, I've had 40 years to make up a story.  I used to be able to plead that it was good enough for gummint work, but my hand-holder seems to have taken a sabbatical.  I'm thinking that he might not have gotten such a kick out of the Truman Show.  I guess you had to be there.  

So, now, what's my excuse......?  I doubt that I'll ever find a better one than that.   They'll just have to grandfather me in.  Anyone for godfather?  


8:30--------

The Sun is the physical key to life on Earth.  You're welcome to point out that I don't believe in physics.  True, enough.  

I do believe in monadology.  Can you think of a better physical representation of the Monad?  Can we even imagine hsuch possibility?  

There was the primordial Sun and the primordial zygote.  All life relates directly thereto.  But some may be tempted to point out that we can't eat metaphors.  

Metaphors don't melt the ice, either.  

And our brains don't shine in the dark.  Who.... who.... who let the light in?  Be sure to let your little light shine, shine, shine.  

If we look at the Sun and zygote in the right light, we are seeing our ultimate Source.  If we look just a little bit further, we might even see the Monad.  Once in awhile, I've even caught a glimpse of it, myself.  

The monism of the consensual present (MCP).... if you are able, in your mind, for just one femto-second, to stop the flow of time, you might see a light that is far more brilliant than the Sun, or so I've been told.  It's the Presence of the One.  You might not want to try this at home.  

When cosmologists look at the night sky really carefully, they can see the Big Bang. I'm asking you to look at the MCP with an equal degree of perception and imagination, and then squint slightly. I don't think it's just atoms swerving in the void. But, hey, I've been wrong before.


(cont.)

@Clearwater Beach

The PSR is big.  So is Monad ~ Sun and zygote.  These are the big two.  

What comes next?  I'm thinking.......

Well, maybe the SST and the SWH.  

Most everything else is filler.  

The CTC is crucial conceptually.

SOC is also crucial to how the uC (microcosm) presents itself.  It may operate on all four levels.  There might be four levels of metabolism that go with it.  If this were true, it might complement the PSR.  The cosmic detritus of the SOC as like so much junk DNA..... it's not junk at all.  

The PSR/SOC is a combination of panentheism and.... I'm not sure how to characterize SOC in those terms.  

Of course, we have to keep the SAP in mind.  It was the original source of inspiration, along with the MB problem.  

The SOC serves as a de-facto conceptual handle for the materialists. It is a form of rechristened vitalism.



(cont.)

Ok, I'm saying that the PSR (Leibniz' principle of sufficient reason) is a big deal.  I'm surely no expert.  I've read the SEP article, and I'm about to read it again.  

As I understand it..... there are no accidents.  The materialists say either that, with a block universe, everything is determined, or, following the quantum, everything, at base, is random.  But, in either case, human existence is an accident.  

There is no direction to evolution, for instance..... no vitalism, no teleology.  



(cont.).

It turns out that Leibniz did not invent the PSR, he merely named it.

It was Spinoza who invented it.  Leibniz invented the BPWH.  Spinoza, on the contrary, believed that only one world was possible.  He reasoned that if two worlds were possible, neither one would have a sufficient reason to exist.  I would, however, argue that, due to the LAP/MAP (least and maximal action principle), only the best world is possible, globally.  

Yes, God and we have free will, but it is circumscribed globally by the BPWH.  I concede, however, that it's not obvious to me why free will should override global determinism, locally, but it seems not to be contrary to common sense.  

Anyway, the PSR has fallen out of favor since S and R are both normative terms.  

Reasons or explanations can be either natural or psychological.  However, if you've been keeping up with the physics, you would know that causation, itself, has fallen out of favor.  The very concept of causation is seen as being normative, best left to popularizing naturalists.

It's only under the banner of personal idealism that we can hope to bring back the PSR.  And that is exactly where we are.  

Assuming that normativity applies only to sapience/humans, PSR and personalism are virtually synonymous.  Merely sentient creatures have no concept of the is/ought distinction, implied in normativity.  

Does this mean that other creatures cannot participate in that distinction, unwittingly?  After all, they do follow the norms of the species, especially when it comes to mate selection.  They do act normally, naturally.  What am I trying to say here?  What is the distinction that I appeal to?  There is some crucial ontology here.  


5:10---------

Normativity...... does it matter if it's unwitting?  Most of our normative behavior is unwitting.  

3/21--------

6:15-------

Enroute back Baltimore.........

That measurement is normative has ontological implications relative to quantum physics.

It is claimed that decoherence is a spontaneous process. I'm not aware of any evidence to the contrary.

It is also claimed that a measurement must leave a trace. I don't know that this is disputed.

Many biological processes are self-tracing, it would seem. Certainly, there could be little doubt of their decoherence.

I have suggested that the measurement problem is not merely a quantum problem.

Intentionality remains a key issue in philosophy, over a century after it was first introduced.  

The problem of intentionality overlaps with the problem of consciousness.  

Yes, intentionality is the hallmark of the mental.  The question that immaterialists pose is whether intentionality is the hallmark of everything.  

To put it another way, would there be objects without objectification?  

Man is the measure of all things.... is an alternate way to put that last statement.  This would also be a restatement of the strong measurement hypothesis (SM).  

One does not have to doubt that there is something like it is to be a bat.  What might, legitimately, be doubted is whether bats, or anything besides us, can be here, now.  

I'm simply doubting whether, without sapience, there can be a here and now.  

Can there be a present without a Presence?  

Am I not just playing language games?  But is there any other game in town?  

For everything, including humans, time was cyclic.  The present moment was an abstraction.  Somewhere, somehow, we broke that spell.  Julian Jaynes refers to the breakdown of the bicameral mind, and the emergence of ego consciousness.  That might be the demarcation between deep and historical time.  That might have been our Alpha point.  IOW, we were never without a sapient soul.  We are Homo Sapiens, after all.  

The soul brings us the cosmos.  It makes us microcosms.  Ego consciousness is a reflection of cosmic consciousness.  This is what animals don't have.  They have a totem Cs.  Whatever that may be, it's not personal.  

Individual animals have experience.  


noon--------

I'm not sure that last statement makes sense.  It entails that the animal's experience is individually subjective.  

Is there a line to be drawn between the merely subjective and the personal?  What is it, minimally, that can experience?  

How does this relate to the problem of panpsychism?  


I would assume that much of teleology is unconscious.  I would not say the same of intentionality.  


To reiterate, the basic idea of the BPWH is that it is persons, rather than atoms and the void, that form the basis of reality.  

Only persons can support a world.  It takes sapience to conceive of such an entity.  

The fleshing out of the world is by and through persons. Personhood can support the symmerty breaking that is required. It is we who can sustain the diversity of the flora and fauna conceptually, providing the necessary individuality.

Everything around us, including ourselves, are figment of the cosmic mind, or the collective consciousness of persons.



(cont.)

The potential for persons is eternal.  And so is the potential for the BPW.  In fact, the two potentials are complementary.  Persons are microcosmic wrt the BPW.  All the rest has to do with pokotok, i.e. the level playing field, or space and time, and the symmerty breaking that fills in the background, coming out of the zodiad, which, in its turn, derives from the olympiad/trinity, in a totemic fashion.  

Persons need not be incarcerate [incarnate!], in general, but that's the whole point of the BPW....

Incarnation => metabolism => ecosystem > logical/deep time.  

It is important to note that the BPW necessarily entails a semi-closed system, in both space and time.  Thus do we have the metanarrative of recorded history that is synonymous with the BPW.  

This is the logical background to the problem that I posed yesterday.... namely, the ontological status of the flora and fauna.  And, more particularly, the mental status of the higher animals.  

Do animals feel pain?  Sure, but, then, what is it that does the feeling?  It's not a person.... no, but is it an individual subject, or some sort of collective subject?  

Remember, I'm saying that sapience is the great identifier... individuator.  Sentience alone doesn't do that.  We, collectively, are the source of the symmerty breaking.  That is what sapience and memory are all about.  N.B. that (long-term/eidetic) memory, just by implication, is included in sapience.  

IOW, animals are not self-individuating.... not self-conscious.  Do babies feel pain?  Sure, but not the way persons do.  Pain, with us, is largely intersubjective or social, i.e. personal.  Beyond that, I dare not venture.  

The hawk spots the squirrel.  But does the hawk see the squirrel, thereby individuating it, objectifying it.  I'm skeptical.  Neither the hawk nor the squirrel are individual subjects.  There is nothing like it is for us to be a bat, pace Thomas Nagel.  We cannot imagine.  

Raw feels, so called, are not intentional.  Upon reflection, they become intentional.  Animals don't reflect.  If intentionality is the mark of the mind, then animals don't have minds.  In point of fact, animals don't have anything.  They are not subjects.  But, n.b., they are not machines, either.  

Animals partake of the cosmic teleology.  So do we.  To that extent, animals posses non-individual souls.  So do we, but ours become individuated, temporarily, for the duration of our time-share.  

Machines.....?  Get a life......!  

Ok, I hope we settled some outstanding issues, for the time being, at least.  


10:45--------

So what.......?

I have not proven that animals do not have experience, do not feel.  But I have shown that it's plausible to suppose that animals and human infants do not.  This possibility, in turn, makes idealism/immaterialism more plausible, by demonstrating that the Darwinian thesis of strict continuity between animals and humans need not go by default.  

This is what is at stake when I stress the divergence between sentience and sapience.  It's not just a matter of degree.  It's a matter of ontology.  

Personalism is a species of idealism, on the view being presented here.  Idealism is to say that only ideas matter... only ideas exist.  Personalism is to say that the psyches of persons are the ultimate source of ideas.  

However, more generally, philosophically, there are versions of personalism: idealist, existentialist and phenomenalogical, according to the SEP.  Though, historically, according to the SEP, personalism has 'nearly always been attached to biblical theism.'


12:30--------

As with existential theism, there is a studied indifference to cosmology..... there is a studied disregard of human origins.  However, there is, in the background, the idea that God is a person, and that God's personhood is the ultimate source of persons.

There is, however, amongst all but a few fundamentalist types, a desire not to clash with the scientific establishment.  

Theistic cosmology goes about as far as the Anthropic principle, and speculation as to the origin of life.  

At this point, I would recommend the reading of the SEP section.....

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/#FatIdeTweCen  

..... The Fate of Idealism in the Twentieth Century, which I am doing, with some interest.  



(cont.)

I have spent some time perusing that final section of the SEP entry on idealism.  I focus on the politics implicit in and around it.....

There was an international meeting in Berlin in July, 2014, devoted to the composition of the entry, and I imagine that it, too, was focused on this final section.  

What I see is some very skillful marshaling of the recent historical record concerning the 'fate' of idealism.  

I suspect that, amongst the participants, there was a liminal fear of the threat of a MoAPS that would include idealism.  They could be seen as tiptoeing around that 800lb gorilla.  

Instead of a MoAPS we are offered neutral monism or panpsychism. The offer being preceded by this caveat.....

One might even get the impression that in contemporary scientifically-oriented philosophy idealism is no longer considered a threat.

Hmmm...... you don't say!  

Did someone mention a 'threat'?  What is it that might possibly transform a piece of philosophical speculation into a palpable 'threat'?  

Naive me......  And here I thought that philosophy entailed merely the pursuit of truth.  No, actually, my brief encounter with academic philosophy, in '76-'77, left me with no great illusions on that score.  That is precisely why I am here, at OMF.  

Yes, I understand full well that playing with the MoAPS is playing with fire.  And what am I to make of the fact that my erstwhile fire marshal has gone AWOL.... all the while pointing to a September surprise.  Hmmm..... again.  Well, the philosophical decks, at least, are clear.  


12:45--------

It's a bit like the police officer at the scene of an accident..... Move along, folks, there's nothing to see, here.  

I recall mentioning here, a couple of years ago, just before Nagel's Cosmos book came out, his colleague, Ned Block, came to Hopkins and mentioned, just in passing, about a 'panpsychic catastrophe'.  When I approached him after the talk, he was dismissive.  

Apparently, it was okay for philosophers speculate about idealism in the 1800's, but it's not okay today.  Now, it comes with a threat attached to it.  How much more do they know/suspect, now, that they're not willing to speculate about in public?  

They suspect that scientific materialism is vulnerable.  SM is a much bigger target today than it was 200 years ago.  It's disappearance would leave a much bigger hole in society.  The political repercussions would be that much greater.  It would leave behind an enormous vacuum.  Fools like me would rush in.  In itself, the MoAPS waxes apocalyptic.  Who knows what might lurk behind the MoAPS.  An Eschaton?  

Be afraid..... be very afraid....??  

Yes, it's a long way to go from blasé atheism to the BPWH.... and there won't be any grace period, to speak of.  

The global situation is much too tense, and the global population has been sensitized to the potentially explosive nature of anything smacking of religion.  

Yes, we have all the makings of a perfect storm.  The philosophers, sitting in their ivory towers, may not be so oblivious to matters of the psyche.  Have they not done their share of soul searching?  

Do many not anticipate a cosmic trigger?  Will it come from the clouds on high, or will it come from the depths of the soul?  I would wish for the latter.  I would wish that it be a butterfly flapping its wings..... or even an old codger pecking away at the keys.  


As long as I'm keeping a wary eye on the philosopers, it occurs that should check out dualism.  The SEP reports a substantive revision, less than a month ago.  


4:15-----------

It was a relatively short journey to get from dualism to neutral monism to the problem of perception to direct realism. The latter phrase is more widely used than 'direct perception' that I was using previously. I'm gratified to learn that direct realism has had a modern resurgence.

The proponents of DR often attempt to distance themselves from idealism, although, by itself, DR seems rather conducive to idealism.



(cont.)

In the Wikipedia and the SEP there is ample evidence of the quagmire into which philosopers of the mind have wandered.  They struggle mightily to get beyond Cartesian dualism and epiphenomenalism.  It appears that there are an infinite number of ways to move beyond those paradigms.  

I recommend the wiki entry on the 'philosophy of mind' for the breadth of its coverage.  On the individual topics, you will find greater depth in the SEP.  

What I find interesting in general are the various ways that perception is being extended beyond the subject-object dichotomy.  The SEP's entry on the problems of perception is noteworthy.  

Closely related are the attempts to extend the mind beyond the skull.  'Externalism' is a term of choice.  JJ Gibson is notable for his ecological theory of the mind.  

One would think that externalism would lead naturally panpsychism and idealism, but, no.  The general opprobrium associated with immaterialism is such that the externalists are at pains to disassociate themselves from any such odor.  Well, all the more for us amateurs.  There is no back door to the katechon.  Its grip is firm and omnipresent.  

One of the biggest impediments to the direct realism and the notion of an extended mind is the devastatingly simple experiment of closing one's eyes.  This would be a defeator of DR in most people's minds.  It is a token of the strength of their convictions that the DR folks press on, anyway.  

I can attest to the difficulty of transcending the camera analogy of vision.  One must dwell upon the function of the eyelid and of geometrical optics.  There is a sine-qua-non involved therein.  DR is the default.  The problem is to accommodate the logical necessities of indirect realism (IR), at the same time.  

There is a similar problem with immaterialism....  The problem is not to explain anomalous phenomena, rather it is to explain the mundane.  I have been at pains to do so.  Bottom line.... we take far too much for granted.  Everything is a miracle.... especially life.  

Yes, it is mind boggling, once you begin to appreciate the 'ordinary'.   One way to do so is to just begin to question the authority of what passes as common sense.  This is what it is to have an Open Mind..... get it?!


12:45---------

My mind was opened when I first saw mention of the Anthropic principle in Jack's Space, Time and Beyond.  I had managed to get through two of the best schools in physics without hearing mention of the AP, despite the fact that one of them turned out to have been its birthplace.  That was my introduction to the closure of the academic mind.  The inventors of the AP simply could not get their heads around it.  Its implications were too mind boggling, especially for the best and brightest of them.  

The philosophers cannot appreciate its revolutionary implications.  It is hard to, without a grounding in physics.  They suppose it to be just a rehash of Paley's worn out argument from design.  Most have no clue.  The few that do are sufficiently politic to keep their mouths shut.  

The exception to this rule was Thomas Nagel, that is until, quite evidently, he was read the riot act.  

It's just going to be business as usual.... the mice will continue to play, right up until D-day.  


Back to the PSR.... principle of sufficient reason. Does it not suffice unto the day?  

From the SEP........

In the medieval period, Peter Abelard argued that God must create the best of all possible worlds. If he didn't, Abelard argues, there would have to be some reason for it. But what reason could that be except God's injustice or jealousy?

And, in this BPW, would we, sapients, not be allowed to participate as co-Creators?  And, in the end, would there not be an Apocatasis?  The BPW is not rocket science, now, is it?  

What I have difficulty explaining to folks is that this BPW would be finite.  

Yes, I understand that it seems natural to suppose that an omnipotent God would create an infinite universe.  

But, there is a deal breaker, when it comes to an infinite Creation.... namely that the best possible Creation would be personal, from top to bottom.  That is the whole point of xtianity, for instance.  

Still, personalism is not easy to get one's head around, either.  The professional xtians do there level best to downplay that very notion.  Hey, God is their big stick.... the bigger, the better.  They should know better.  It smacks of criminal ignorance.  The very concept of personhood simply eludes them.  

We live in the Age of Quantity.  Quality does not count.  It has become commonplace to imagine infinitely big.  Infinitely good.... what's that?  Can it measure up?  

The personal is social, and God must be included in that society.  It's just that simple.  Anything quantitatively infinite is going to be impersonal.  This is the whole idea of the Trinity, is it not?  Get over it, get used to it.  


3:30--------

Continuing to read about the history of the PSR in the SEP.....

Now I'm learning that Peter Abelard (1079-1142) preceded Spinoza, with the PSR, by nearly half a millennium.  For his pains, he was branded a heretic.  No, no.... God had to seem quite indifferent towards Creation.  No, we could never feel chummy, not even in the same ballpark with God.  I got to see that mindset at GFC, up close and personal.  


8pm-----------

The PSR leads most directly to the BPW.

It also leads to the P2LS = PII LAP SAP.  

It leads to holism and monism and to teleology = HMT.

Also to personalism and the SWH.  The SWH implies the metanarrative (mN) and the CTC.  

The PSR implies the CohTT.  

The microcosm (uC) implies morphic resonance (MR).  

The mN implies the chrysalis and the Apocatasis (Apo) and the metamorphosis of the Noosphere (mMN).  

Monism is closely aligned with symmerty breaking (SB) and co-dependent arising (CDA).  

I would add Peter Abelard to the seven philosophers, giving us PPAKHWTB, now eight.  

The PSR goes pretty closely with the four levels of consciousness.... Cs, CCs, uCs and CuCs.  

AZO/X/QRP is mostly an explication of the microcosm (uM).  

The 4M/K..... is a filling out of the mN, in relation to Dis(closure).

The UIL = UEM, Informationalism and the Logos. These align closely with the PSR. The logos spermatikos (LS) also aligns with the uC.

We've pretty well covered the mnemonic.