There Is A Primary Flaw In Fundamentalism,
i.e.: it doesn’t really exist, except as a consequence of flawed thinking …
When we look to/at the world what do we see? The same question applies to what we hear … feel … taste … smell … all of the various and interactive ways we experience the world external to us, as well as that which we perceive to be occurring within ourselves.
Whether it’s the look, feel and smell of a rose blossom … or the sensation of having a full or empty stomach … or the light brush of touch as the hand of a loved one caresses the back of your own … these sensations are what we experience as being what the things we experience are … i.e.: their fundamental nature.
Yet, is that true?
Do we experience fundamental nature? … Ever?
This is a “trick” of thinking that we have been trained into believing … i.e.: that things, events, experiences, perceptions are something.
The Trick of Cartesian Thinking (or “Aristotle’s Gift”)
Anyone trained in Newtonian based science … i.e.: the extension of Hellenistic natural science … has been covertly trained in the Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm. Here are some of the “laws” that operate within that paradigm:
-
There is such a thing as cause and effect that operates on both a macroscopic as well as microscopic level
-
There are things that exist as themselves … matter that is self-defined as being what it is fundamentally
-
That there are some fundamental laws of the Universe that will apply everywhere and at all times in the Universe
-
That there is some fundamental unit of matter from which all matter arises, i.e.: atoms … now, quarks … or strings
-
That finding the fundamental unit of matter will lead to the discovery of a fundamental equation explaining the nature of the Universe at it’s most fundamental level … i.e.: A Theory of Everything (TOE)
What fundamental of course is that virtually anyone who has been ‘educated’ in any standard schooling system, e.g.: in the U.S. … the U.K. … Sweden … China … Iran … Brazil … Nicaragua … wherever, has been trained to ‘believe’ in Newtonian science as the basic explanation of the Universe at the macroscopic scale.
Newtonian based thinking goes well beyond ‘science’ and is applied across the board to all aspects of human understanding and endeavor. We begin to look for the cause and fundamental rules/laws of “WHY?” everywhere.
-
Why do people treat me like they do (there must be a reason, a cause, some fundamental aspect of who I am …)?
-
Why does the economy work like it does (there must be a fundamental equation we can find to explain it)?
-
Why do some people achieve success, while other struggle and fail (there has to be a reason, something fundamental that they do … a system they use to create success …)?
However this assumes some kind of “pure logic” exists as well, i.e.: that the Universe operates “logically.”
Yet, there is no proof that the Universe operates based on any kind of linear logic as is typically assumed will be found.
Ludwig Wittgenstein basically unraveled the mystery of formal logic … and then went onto decry it into non-existence as a function of human thinking error … for him it was all language and the puzzles we create therein.
The quantum physicists … and the physics they play with, e.g.: particle physics … so often points to a non-linear, non-logical Universe that you’d think they’d have gotten it by now, but they are still looking for the fundamentals … i.e.: the fundamental particle … the fundamental equation …
It’s not that classical physics (the Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm) breaks down at the quantum level … it’s more that the world they are looking at doesn’t exist … in some ‘fundamental’ way they create it as they are looking for it.
What seems more accurate is kind of Cybernetic paradigm … a recursive loop that creates and recreates what is fed into it … with subtle alterations the build up to perceivable complexities over time as the system evolves and interacts with itself.
This kind of thinking feeds into a consideration of an emergent Universe as opposed to a predetermined one …
METAPHOR …
Moving Beyond and Before the Newtonian/Cartesian Paradigm
Considered from the point of view of a non-Newtonian/non-Cartesian position, let’s call it a Cybernetic worldview, the idea of absolute linear, cause and effect fundamental determinism becomes absurd.
Here’s a thought experiment for you to consider it for yourself …
Imagine a perfectly clear, still pond … now imagine throwing a small stone into the center of that perfectly still pond and the effect you’d see at the surface … the perfect concentric rings of waves formed by the action of that stone breaking the surface and disturbing the water in the particular way it would.
Now imagine that at some distance from the center of the pond there is a single, small water lily flowering … and imagine what happens when the ripples hit the stalk of the lily … the secondary ripples created … and the way they would interact and create inference patterns in the ripples created by the initial stone dropping into the pond.
Then imagine a small frog on the stalk of the lily that jumps just before the first ripple hits the stalk creating yet another set of ripples … these moving even faster than the now slowing ripples the stone initially created … and again the inference pattern created by the ripples hitting and interacting with ripples … hitting and interacting with ripples … ad infinitum as more and more events build in the pond … small insects flying off the surface as the frog jumps … the movement of the water below the surface from the stalk … the bird flying off the branch of the tree sitting next to the pond startled by the sound of the frog’s splashing …
Now finally imagine instead of an equation defining all of these events, which are in fact both simultaneously discreet and continuous … a pattern which describes what has and is occurring moment by moment and a simultaneous pattern which describes what is occurring through time as well … and a third, inference pattern, describing the relationship between the two patterns describing the events.
The pattern that describes the relationship between the two patterns that describe the events is metaphor.
The key in getting metaphor is remembering that it doesn’t exist, it’s only pointing to something else which is beyond the direct reach of our understanding.
Despite the specificity and precision that metaphor inherently lacks it points more accurately to the approximations that the equations of the Newtwonian/Cartesian paradigm seek to define then they do.
What To Do When Logic Fails …
The vast majority of my clients want strong working definitions, which is fine as long as they recognize the definitions are metaphoric and imprecise … simply pointing to a suggestion of possibilities in an infinite range.
However, many or most people what precise definitions they can count on that are continuous and unchanging, despite the discreet nature of the lives they are living and the events they experience. E.g.: many/most people would like to know what their “life’s purpose” is … what their true destiny holds … who they are supposed to be (when they grow up …) … yet this is at best illusion.
 Who/what one is remains purely emergent within a Cybernetic paradigm, constantly open to change and the flux of the emergent events that surround them.
What seems to focus the emergent form that you perceive and experience is a particular property of consciousness we can call “attention” … i.e.: the particular position from which and the unique way you interact with and perceive sensory data.
In the Cybernetic paradigm oscillation replaces logic, linearity, and cause and effect.
In the Cybernetic paradigm things are either “on” or “off” … like the working of a thermostatic control system, e.g.: when it’s hot it’s “off” … when it’s cold it’s “on” … and so the system goes self-regulating, self-adjusting but always in response the effect that “IT” has on the system, never as separate or distinct from the system.
This is fundamental to the Cybernetic paradigm, i.e.: “on/off” operating relative to an emergent, dynamic system in flux.
In a purely Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm we would look to maximize the precision of the system relative to some fixed ideal, e.g.: a set temperature. Within a Cybernetic paradigm we could consider the effect of subjective perception, that remains in flux, as part of the model we design … e.g.: when it is colder we tend to move more creating more internal heat requiring a lower temperature, or visa-versa depending on the individual, subjective experience of cold … non-deterministic based on purely calculatable external data … i.e.: an individual can choose how they feel about the cold/non-cold.
Oscillating INTENT
In the MythoSelf Process model the idea of oscillation is central to the process.
There are two primary oscillations that collide forming the emergent quality we refer to as “INTENT” … a massive directionality that is uniquely suited to the individual and relative to the system they operate within that contains them.
-
The oscillation between the Excitatory State and the Inhibitory State, i.e.: the relative state of the neurological system as open to new information or closed to new information … open or closed neurological loops … a unique, generative position or Generalized Desired State, the G.D.S.
The primary distinction of the Excitatory State is that when you are operating from it you have access to creativity … this in turn creates remarkable resiliency in the system, i.e.: how you perceive and consider the events you encounter and the range of your behavioral responses to them. This is why the Excitatory State is referred to as the “Ready State” within the model, i.e.: because when you are operating with open neurological loops the system can perceive and incorporate new data in/from the environment as it emerges and respond … you are “ready” and capable of responding resourcefully*.
-
The oscillation between a Generalized Desired State (G.D.S.) and a position relative to that which is Greater Than Self (G.T.S.) – the system that contains the individual and all that represents, e.g.: the Cosmos … G-d …
The G.T.S. organizes the individual transpersonally, i.e.: beyond the limitations of themselves. Because there the awareness of the system-at-large becomes present when you are operating from the G.T.S. you become capable of perceiving the patterns within the system … both those that preceded the emergent form you are responding to as well as the forms that will emerge as a result of the action you take. Operating from the G.T.S. the consequences of actions become apparent and the sense of directionality emerges when an oscillation with the G.D.S. is organized into the individual operating position, i.e.: the way experiences are perceived and limited range of responses that emerge relative to maximizing positive consequences while minimizing negative consequences.
The unique outcome of the emergence of INTENT is that you become more aligned with yourself, i.e.: your perceptions, decisions and actions become a direct manifestation of both who you are and who you desire to become … without the imposition of socially organized, external markers, i.e.: what you have been taught to do, should do or ought to do according to some externally imposed measure or referential index.
The position that is associated with operating from INTENT is the release and realization of your unique creativity … a subjective “creative imperative” directed to the unique outcome you desire and intend to manifest.
When you build in this way of operating you leave behind the fallacy of fundamentalism, i.e.: fundamental rules or laws applied universally despite the discreet unique, individual differences that exist. Operating from INTENT opens you to possibilities that exist beyond the evidence that is currently present, but may become present as a function of the emergent properties released by your creative action.
In The End The Choice (As Always …) Is Yours To Make …
Are you up to it?
Joseph Riggio, Ph.D.
Princeton, NJ
Randy Green says
This way of being suggests a superbly unique way of responding to a situation others who behave from within the typical Newtownian/Cartesian would find difficult or tragic. Bringing your unique creativity to bear, you transcend the social mores associated with any given situation and experience a profound sense of emergence that positively and powerfully affects your decisions moving forward.
Would you say that to embrace this metaphor with great facility puts you squarely on the road to mastery… to master your life?
Randy
Joseph says
Randy,
Yes, I would … say that this is a path to mastery.
There are of course different kinds of mastery, and even levels of mastery.
Following the path of creativity, or what I tend to call the “aesthetic orientation,” generates a unique kind of mastery. Within this form of mastery a particular freedom emerges … a freedom from the constraints and restraints of socially imposed expectation.
However, this also entails great risk and sacrifice. It means letting go of all the traditional markers established by society of who, or what, you should be … and why you should follow that path.
In their place a solid sense of ego emerges initially … a profound connection with who you are at a primal level before language exists. From the position of ego integration, what some might suggest is a process of maturation into becoming fully human, you can move to the transcendent position of connection beyond one’s self.
When you have access to the transcendent, or to use Joseph Campbell’s beautiful phrase, “transparent to the transcendent,” you immediately gain a new found perspective on the patterns of connection that are inherent in the movement of the Universe, i.e.: the unfolding, emergent events you are privy to …
Mike says
Not much to say. Very clearly elucidated.
Mike
Joseph says
Mike,
Thanks for the comment.
As you think more, maybe you’ll write more … or maybe not.
Joseph
Mike (not the same Mike) says
I quite like my universal laws…. Language however is another matter (see my previous comment about Hermes).
When I think about oscillation, I think about a pendulum, beloved of many hypnotists. Imagine a pendulum, swinging to and fro. Simple harmonic motion. It may seem to be in a constant state. But actually, it is constant change: at the end of the swing, its velocity is zero, and all its energy is in the form of potential energy. It is at its point of maximum acceleration, and minimum movement. Whereas at the centre of the swing, all its energy is kinetic energy: it has maximum speed, and zero acceleration.
This oscillation proceeds forever. Nothing changes, and yet there is constant change. Is that the kind of thing you mean?
Mike
(the one that’s still thinking about that pond you described, and the *frog* jumping in)
Joseph says
Mike (not the same …),
Thanks for the example … it’s a good one.
While you’re thinking about the pond and the frog, you can oscillate that with the idea of the pendulum’s pivot shifting angularly through the vertical access, moving from a perfectly vertical position perpendicular to the ground plane, to a more or less acute angle to the ground plane.
The movement of the pendulum’s arc would be effected in terms of amplitude, but assuming a frictionless environment … but one NOT free of gravity … the pendulum would assume it was moving in the same arc from a internally referenced point of view.
The internally organized “referential index” for the pendulum would be the experience of the force exerted creating movement, or as you put it potential energy converting to kinetic energy as the pendulum swings through it’s full arc.
From an aesthetic position the movement would be “felt” by the pendulum as the shift from zero acceleration to maximum acceleration and as the deceleration back to zero acceleration. As the pendulum tracks this felt experience the event unfolds as constant in a frictionless environment, despite the fact that the acceleration produces a difference in the arc of the pendulum depending on the angle of the pivot to the ground plane.
If you shift the referential index to the experience of time from zero to maximum acceleration to zero acceleration the pendulum would experience the movement through the arc differently … IF there were an external reference against which time could be measured independently.
In a Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm there is always the assumption of fixed external references which are foundational in the Universe.
Within a Cybernetic paradigm the references shift as the system changes in response to itself so the experience relative to the referential index remains constant.
Within the MythoSelf Process model the primary intention becomes establishing the essential, constant internal referential index … i.e.: the experience of the changeless, transcendent self experiencing the evolution of an emergent Universe … this is the position of INTENT I referenced above …
From the position of INTENT pure choice becomes possible, because the individual becomes ever more aware of the threads of pattern, and the impact of action taken on the pattern that will unfold as a result. The essential quality of perception is pattern recognition … historically, situationally organized in present time, and into the unfolding future.
A great example of this is Frank Herbert’s Paul Atredies’ “mentat training/processing” or his later prescience brought on by the ingestion of spice allowing him to perceive the pattern of the unfolding events, but not their specific manifestation … i.e.: to have and hold a sense of the future, without being able to predict it precisely … the aesthetics of teleology.
Joseph
PS – If you are really interested/willing the mathematics of the cognitive/behavioral form I’m pointing towards is topological maths.
Joseph says
NOTE: Mike … a small addendum regarding my comments re: topological maths above. Topology is the mathematics of dynamic interrelated, interactive networks and systems, i.e.: relationship … versus calculus which is the mathematics of the continuous movement and dynamics of discreet objects. Most physics uses the calculations of calculus and it’s derivitives to explain the properties of the Universe. This conceptual process has been extended to most other sciences and humanities that seek to explain things fundamentally using the Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm grounded in cause and effect, and formal logic.
A topological explanation uses a non-linear exposition of discreet events and objects acting independently and interactively outside of cause and effect or formal logics. The interaction of the discreet events and objects gives rise to a level of complexity that creates a measurable effect that to the human observer seems precise within the limits of the measurement instrumentation.
When the measurement instrumentation becomes the individual, and the calibration is against the constancy of the sense of self in a dynamic, chaotic Cosmos in flux, the movement that is experienced remains constant despite the change that is observable from an externally referenced position … i.e.: very Taoist … the more things change the more they remain the same.
Topology gives us a way to plot the interactions and relationships that form the web of perception.
Andy Iskandar says
Wow Joseph, talk about reading above my belt.
I’m a recent subscriber of yours and the reason I was attracted to your writing was because it is difficult (to me at least). Whenever I come across things that I don’t understand, I have this need to understand them. Plus, I enjoy learning and discovering.
Your writing, for the most part, goes way above my head. Sometimes I have to re-read sentences a few times to understand what you are saying and even then, I still don’t get it at times. I’ve got to admit the things/concepts you write about and how you write about them makes me feel stupid sometimes.
BUT, I am not deterred. We have all got to start somewhere. And I have a long way to go (not that there is an end point, mind you).
Do you have a book list you can recommend to people like me who are interested in the things you write about but are beginning learners?
Joseph says
Andy,
Everything is above your belt until it isn’t, but you’re holding the right attitude.
Regarding the book list that’s a lotta question, however I’ll give it a shot …
I always recommend that folks start with the story before the equations. Fritjof Capra’s “The Tao of Physics” is a good place to start. Another is Gary Zukav’s “Dancing WuLi Masters”. They set the groundwork pretty well.
Once you put in the time to get through those two I strongly recommend you read David Bohm’s “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” … but read it like a novel, i.e.: ignore the equations.
The other book you want to read, challenging but worth it, will be Gregory Bateson’s “Steps to an Ecology of Mind” and “Mind and Nature”.
Get through that list and you’ll be on top of your game … and mine!
Andy Iskandar says
Thanks Joseph! 😀
Tim says
Joseph
I imagine a post-political world, i.e. a world in which enough cybernetically organized individuals are shaping, guiding the system outside of Government in its existing sense. An emergent form of social direction where individuals and groups operate in a loose ever shifting network to influence and shape the system for the ‘greater good’ (whatever that may mean in any given moment). Would you say we are beginning to see something like this already. I certainly see it on a personal/local level.
What a liberating, exhilarating and powerful experience for one to be whomsoever is the most appropriate person in any given situation. No more baggage! No more personality?
Joseph says
Tim,
The key of course will be making it past the political world … the opportunities to annihilate ourselves abound!
Joseph
Marla says
the answer is a resounding yes..and yours will be yes.
Joseph says
Yes … of course …
t says
Hi,
I really like this posting. How does one best embody one’s own version of and embodied cybernetic orientation? On a fundamental level it’s accessing my success blue print a la GDS oscillation GTS and the emergent Intent. How does this get easier, faster more innate or more fully embodied? I know that it’s reorganizing the silent brain and attuning more fully, deeply and conistently to the resonance of one’s success blue print and emergent congruent metaphor.
What other best practices, approaches would you recomment to more fully live the aesthetic filter? Are there some metaphors that you would offer to in-form the third level learning of the embodied cybernetic orientation?
Thanks,
AestheticSocialOntologist
Joseph says
T,
The most important thing I can offer you might be that the experience of INTENT is simultaneously changeless and in constant flux.
Richard says
Joseph,
The Cybernetic paradigm you are proposing is an incredibly useful frame from which to operate. Regardless of whether or not it’s capital T true. (If there even is such a thing.)
It seems to me to be more likely that we do exist in a Newtonian/Cartesian absolutely sequential (rather than linear), cause and effect fundamental deterministic universe and just don’t (and possibly never will) have the equipment, organic or mechanical, to track all the causal relationships that continually take place. That very nature of our consciousness prohibits such capabilities through deletion, distortion and generalization. Literally, a “can’t see the forest for the trees’ situation.
That being said, the more clearly you see the trees and your relationship to them, the more likely you are to move through the forest in the direction you ‘choose’.
This reminds me of a longstanding arguement my Pop (a born again atheist Newtonist himself) and I used to have around “Determinism vs Free Will”. He continually argued in support of determinism, while my point was regardless of determinism, one must act as if he has free will. Act, from a position of ’cause’. ( I can here you saying, “This is not That.”)
Richard
Joseph says
Richard,
Whilst I like your aphorism about “one must act as if he has free will” … but we will have to agree to disagree about determinism.
You are literally making the mistake of the fallacy of fundamentalism I am writing about here. You and just about every other classically trained physicist, including 90% of all quantum physicists … but there are those who would disagree as strongly as me.
Start with Bohm, and follow that where it goes …
Joseph
Gary says
Wow this is really cool stuff!
Somehow it never occurred to me that excitatory and inhibitory would be an oscillation, but of course it makes sense. Of course this just begs more questions would the oscillation be largely regular or irregular. Would different oscillations give rise to different states of mind appropriate for different tasks…
I also can’t help but wonder how the internal oscillation of bias effects the external teleogical orientation. Would the teleogical orientation be a consistent tension leading into the future or is there a very different tension release oscillation in a completely different dimension?
Anyway fun stuff to think about while I attempt to live into actually having the experience.
Joseph says
Gary,
In my experience the oscillation between the inhibitory and the excitatory is largely irregular.
There are folks who are more attuned to an excitatory bias naturally, we tend to call them optimists. There are others who are more attuned to the inhibitory bias we call pessimists. We are even discovering this may have something to do with genetic potentiation due to differing alleles in the gene structure.
It seems that there is a difference between people who possess long and short alleles organized in the right combination with regard to their potential to fall into depressed states when confronted with negative news or situations. The opposite is true for their counterparts with a differing organization of their alleles who tend to be far more naturally resilient.
In part the work I do centers around and focuses on building deep resiliency. When asked if I could only leave one gift to my children what would it be I’ve often responded that it would be resiliency. IMO resiliency is the most profound human characteristic to possess in terms of living a life of profound satisfaction.
Dagfinn Reiersøl says
Joseph, you say “The pattern that describes the relationship between the two patterns that describe the events is metaphor.” Metaphor in contrast to what? What is not metaphor? In everyday life there is a socially relevant distinction between literal and metaphorical description. If a lawyer asks a defendant, “did you actually shoot him, or are you speaking metaphorically?” it means something important in the context. On the other hand, as you indicate, in physics, the idea of anything being a literally true explanation seems lost forever.
I have to admit not having read Bohm. I know, I should be ashamed of myself for that. 😉
Joseph says
Dagfinn,
If I let you I could be drawn into a vicious circular argument about “What is not metaphor?” … but I won’t.
This is akin to the comments that runs around the hypnosis and NLP communities about “everything is hypnosis” … also foolish IMO.
“It is currently 82.4 degrees Fahrenheit in Princeton as I’m writing this” is not metaphor, it is an assertion that points directly to a proposed observable event or property.
Metaphor (at least as I’m using the term) points indirectly to something via suggestion and substitution.
We can argue if the measure of speed, acceleration or velocity in physics is metaphor based on the level of precision we are capable of, and we can also argue about the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin … but I won’t. Instead I’ll make the assertion that the physicists who are using those terms are making assertions as well.
While George Lakoff and his sometimes co-author Mark Johnson here in the U.S. are some of the leading scholars addressing the domain of metaphor, along with Zoltan Koveces in Hungry, John Searle at the University of California- Berkeley is my favorite analytical philosopher dealing with speech acts and the distinctions of language begun by his mentor J.L. Austin from Oxford.
In Searle’s work you’ll find clear distinctions regarding the varieties of linguistic distinctions apart from metaphor. So IMHO comparatively little is really metaphoric, despite poor language use and/or skill by most speakers/writers.
Joseph
PS – Almost nothing in this reply is metaphor … but it does contain many assertions and declarations.
Dagfinn Reiersøl says
Wow, and I thought I was confused before. You’re attributing to me the intention or inclination to drag you into a vicious cycle argument. I really have no idea what you’re talking about. And I don’t know what a vicious cycle argument is. I asked you a question. And after the prelude, you came up with at least a partial answer.
I get your point about “everything is hypnosis”. Perhaps even more relevant is “everything we tell you is a lie”. And it’s related to my question, but maybe in the opposite sense of what you seem to imply.
I deliberately used the word “explanation” to refer to theory rather than simple measurement.
You say “Metaphor (at least as I’m using the term) points indirectly to something via suggestion and substitution.” Maybe that helps, but I’m not sure. If we say “the war on cancer”, is that metaphorical or have we just broadened the definition of the word “war”? If we’ve “suggested” something (bombs and guns) aren’t we doing that every time we use a word with more than one meaning?
I don’t know. Maybe I’m just a hopeless amateur in my dealings with this terminology.
Dagfinn Reiersøl says
And by the way, if I let you, I could be drawn into a battle of mutual innuendo, superficiality and straw man argument…but I won’t. 😉
Dagfinn Reiersøl says
After thinking a bit more about it, I can see that my “war on cancer” example can be resolved simply by deciding. If I intend to refer or suggest indirectly, it’s metaphor. If I intend to broaden the definition, it’s not. I’m still wondering, though. Any abstraction could be considered an indirect reference to a set of specifics. And I don’t know how it relates to your statement that “the pattern that describes the relationship between the two patterns that describe the events is metaphor.” A theory of gravitation, for instance, could be considered a pattern that describes the relationship between two patterns: a pattern (configuration) of mass and a pattern of movement.
Dagfinn Reiersøl says
Bateson: “Even grown-up persons with children of their own cannot give a reasonable account of concepts such as entropy, sacrament, syntax, number, quantity, pattern, linear relation, name, class, relevance, energy, redundancy, force, probability, parts, whole, information, tautology, homology, mass (either Newtonian or Christian), explanation, description, rule of dimensions, logical type, metaphor, topology, and so on.” Oops…
Joseph says
Dagfinn,
My apologies … I didn’t mean for you to read my comment about being drawn into a “vicious circular argument” so literally. I was making a point.
We’re in the domain of semantics IMO. In this domain words have meanings, but not necessarily the same ones to more than one person at a time. So it’s easy to get pulled off track and to create misunderstandings and misconceptions. (Obviously!)
My direct point was that metaphor points to something indirectly and by virtue of that indirectness is more inclusive and precise.
If we step away from Bateson for a moment and move back to Bohm it’s a function of working at the explicate level or the implicate level. IMO metaphor is operating and working at the implicate level where meaning is enfolded rather than unfolded.
The two patterns I refer to are hierarchically organized, i.e.: one pattern is meta to the other, and categorically aligned, i.e.: they are both about the same pattern … i.e.: the ripples in the pond. The third pattern, i.e.: one that contains both patterns at two hierarchical levels that are aligned regarding content, will need to refer to information that is implicit, i.e.: the implicate order that is present but enfolded, and in that way must be metaphorical, i.e.: a story about the event versus a description of the event.
In some way gravity when you are telling the story of what it is about is the same. The equation for gravity is not IMO.
Dagfinn Reiersøl says
That’s OK. I take it as a compliment when you throw something provocative at me. It seems to imply that I can deal with it, which I can.
I’m going to read both Bohm and Searle.
Rich says
Wow, I have no idea what you’re all talking about here.
In simple terms are you saying that there is a method by which I can change my thinking so that how I perceive currently will be be different and preferable in some way?
And that this new way of thinking and hence perceiving will work without my conscious attention rather like blinking?
If any of what I’ve just written is close to understanding whats been suggested in this article then what is the benefit of learning this new way of thinking?
Like what does it mean to, ..’become more aligned with yourself’….?
Joseph says
Rich …
No.
Let me tell you a story …
Joseph
Shyaam says
Hello Dr.Joseph
From the first half, I get that the Universe doesn’t function in linear fashion. (though I don’t know I embody the info)
I didn’t understand the second half!!
I have had these doubts for a long time:
Does the Excitatory State mean ‘Being in the Now’?
and
in the case of intent – I feel that I fantasize rather than true alignment!!!
Thank You 🙂
W.L. Hoffman says
Joseph – great posts (Part I and II) on “The Pattern that Connects,” as they are probably (IMO) your best and most succinct presentation I have yet read on “deeper” issues and the MythoSelf. This does not mean to imply there is a short cut to the journey. I’ll reference it to the pursuit of mastery – which can be a life long event from the perspective of you never really stop perfecting the experience even if somewhere along the continuum you actually cross into a master level of performance.
You know me – science fiction and fantasy, philosophy and cosmology – let me throw another concept into your fascinating mix to those interested: MAGIC. This is not the Heaven and Hell variety, nor the consequence-free fiction so often presented in the mainstream, i.e., Harry Potter, Wizards of Waverly Place, and fashionable witchcraft societies. I’m talking about patterns, energies and influence in the Universe, in some ways, the quantum border where science meets religion. And yet, this is not a domain where linear logic applies, but a more chaotic and abstract landscape where cognition, intuition, and intent combine to open a wider reality. To me, much of your discussions on the MythoSelf also have application in this regard.
When we as humans have refined our consciousness and receptivity to elite levels, there are capabilities that can be tuned to those with serious intent. You begin to drift away from local energies and it can be dangerous for those not sufficiently grounded, especially because you are seeking to enter a realm without “fixed” rules and definitions. But this type of interaction can lead to results that seem like, well… magic. Your example from Dune of Paul Atreides is apt… his ability to perceive the patterns and possibilities of future convergences has an aura of wizardry, and I don’t think it’s an accident that the Bene Gesserit were depicted by Herbert as witches.
Again, I don’t want your folks to be confused… I am not attempting to encapsulate your MythoSelf Process within the “magic” moniker, but I do want them to realize that “strange” synchronicities and confluences might occur as they move along the journey. There is an interconnectedness, a quantum entanglement of sorts that permeates the entire Universe and in all likelihood a MultiVerse of surrounding dimensions. When you align “self” via an excitatory state, to a purer representation of purpose and intent, other alignments spring into the pattern. Some will enhance, while others will cause interference.
Anyway, this is not a discussion that can be adequately captured online – we can continue by the fire pit with a glass of the good stuff – but I did want to plant the seed here.
' NBC Handled Ann Curry Crisis Badly says
Worry gives a small thing a big shadow.