>BB -- I've been holding
this Posting for some time just
>so I could give some thought to the dynamics involved
>and see if I might shed some light on this matter --
> it seems to me that some folks simply feel that
>the degree of their personal acumen is so much greater
>and so far superior to that of others that they are justified
>in clinging to life while those who differ with them obviously
>have lesser acumen and Noetic prowess and therefore have
>no right to cling to life and occupy space and ground needed
>by the peer-group of Mutual Admiration Societies!
You're a painter, Jon, an artist in colour and fractal-form(self-similarity at all levels of scale) and true humanity, and you understand these things.Revolutions are *nonlinear* in the 4th-dimension, they break allthe clocks. But those who are too literal, and stuck in linear time, blame the messenger :-) Lawrence Crowell's gif of his cat was just about 'dead' space and time. Whereas that portrait of yours of a young girl was majestically dignified and rich in the depths of silence it evoked -- it made me *feel*that spaceand time are Real Beings.
It was Mitchell Feigenbaum who discovered that there exists a universal constant (scaling) in chaotic/turbulent systems. And it was he too who realised that the only things that can be universal, in a sense, are scaling things. It's the human scale, and self-similarity that matter, in our case. One has to look for scaling structures, how the big details relate to the little ones. And speaking speaking specifically about art, hesays:
"In a way, art is about the
way the world looks to human beings. It's abundantly obvious that one doesn't
know the world about us in detail.What artists have realized is that there
is only a small amount of stuff that's important ... you can study the
horizons in Dutch inkdrawings from around 1600, with tiny trees and cows
that look very real [and] if you look closely, the trees have sort of leafy
boundaries, but it doesn't work if that's all it is -- there are also,
sticking in it, little pieces of twiglike stuff. There's a definite
interplay between the softer textures and the things with more definite
lines. Somehow the combination gives the correct perception.
With Ruysdael and Turner, if you look at the way they construct complicated water,
it is clearly done in an iterative way. There's some level of stuff, and
then stuff painted on top of that, and then corrections to that.
Turbulent fluids for those painters is always something with a scaling
idea in it.
"I really do want to know
how to describe clouds. But to say there's a piece over here with
that much detailed information,
I think is wrong. It's certainly not how a human being sees those things,
and it's not how an artist perceives them. Somehow the business of
writing down partial differential equations is not to have done the work
on the problem" (quoted in _Chaos_
by J. Gleick, Heinemann).
In other words, to understand iteration and (human)scaling,
as an artist does, you first have to 'let go' -- and experience chaos.In
which case, art is a realisation of the notion that "anarchy (from Gr.*anarchos*,
meaning 'without a ruler') is order". And all the rest is ego: hierarchy.The
world organises itself humanly, it would seem, if you are yourself authentically
>>In comparison to the passage above J S's stuff on flying saucers and his
>>hopes for warp drives etc is positively meaningful. This is especially so
>>in view of its first line. In contrast for example, what does the following
>>bald assertion amount to?
>>"through the medium of "extra-corporeal 'DNA'", as it were (which
>>after all is all the written word is)"
>>What does all this mean? What are we to make of it? This is not remotely
'DNA'", let me quote from "Life on Earth: A Natural History" by Sir David
Attenborough (world-famous for his presentation of BBC TV programmes on
this subject) (William Collins & Sons, 1979):
"Today, our libraries+, the descendants of those mud tablets, can be regarded as immense communal brains, memorising far more than any one human brain could hold. More than that, they can be seen as EXTRA-CORPOREAL DNA, adjuncts to our genetical inheritance as important and influential in determining the way we behave as the chromosones in our tissues are in determining the physical shape of our bodies" (p. 308; my capitals).
Got that so far, Peter?
Okay. Now think of
a book like the I
Ching (attributed to Lao-Tse), which has lasted for over 3,000 years.
As such, from Attenborough's standpoint it comprises a kind of 'extra-corporeal. C.G.
Jung (who worked very productively for some years with Nobel laureate
for Physics, Wolfgang Pauli) summed up the I Ching's special significance,
firstly, by noting that Chinese 'science' has not been based upon the principle
of causality -- for, AS IN modern physics, here causality is perceived
as being only RELATIVE:
"The East bases its thinking and its evaluation of facts on another principle. We have not even a word for that principle. The [right-brain] East naturally has a word for it, but we do not understand it.
The Eastern word is Tao.
My friend McDougall has a Chinese student, and he asked him:
'What do you mean by Tao?' Typically [left brain] Western! The Chinese explained what Tao is, and he replied: 'I do not understand yet'.The Chinese went out to the balcony and said: 'What do you see?' 'I see a street and houses and people walking and tram-cars passing'. 'What more?' 'There is a hill'. 'What more?' 'Trees'. 'What more?' 'The wind is blowing'. The Chinese threw up his arms and said: 'That is Tao'.
"There you are. Tao can be anything. I use another word to designate it, but it is poor enough. I call it synchronicity. The Eastern mind, when it looks at an ensemble of facts [i.e. in terms of RHfractal/sentient time], accepts that ensemble as it is, but the Western mind divides it into entities, small quantities. The Chinese mind experiments with that being together and coming together at the right moment, and it has an experimental method that is not known in the [left brain] West, but which plays a large role in the philosophy of the [right brain] East. It is a method of forecasting possibilities, and it is still used by the Japanese Government about political situations; it was used, for instance, in the Great War. This method was formulated in 1143 B.C." [Cf. The I Ching or Book of Changes tr. Wilhelm/Baynes, 3rd edn., introduction, p. liii.] (Analytical Psychology: The Theory & Practice: The Tavistock Lectures, 1935; Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968). There are 64 hexagrams in the I Ching, giving the numbers 64 x 6 'possibilities' The numbers 64 and 6 are prominent in my 12-dimensional psychophysical model (i.e. divide the gravity in each higher dimension by its complementary opposite and one finds that the ratio is 1/64 -- and there are 6 of these complentaries). And it was the great physicist Matti Pitkanen who informed me that not only are there 64 hexagrams in the I Ching, but also that he had devised a rigorously mathematical 'association sequence' for the genetic code (cf. the 64-DNA triplets) that also took account of the fact that the upper bound for the number N(AA) of DNA triplets coding to a given amino acid AA is 6. In other words, he had constructed a model of the genetic code in which the numbers 64 and 6 emerge naturally! Moreover, he did not believe that these numbers were "randomly determined" -- for he also pointed out that these numbers, 64 and 6, are the fundamental ones in the I Ching.
And he believed that the details of the "association
code" that he had hit upon were truly a result of evolution.
Thus, it seems to me, the fact that 64 and 6 are of such significance to
the 12-dimensional psychophysical model also, could hardly be without significance.
(Another theoretical physicist, Jack Sarfatti did not agree, and at this
point departed the list :-) Now some months later, my nose
was pointed in the direction of Chris Lofting's homepage -- and to my delight
I found that his dichotomous analysis (one:many mapping) of the 64-bit
binary tree also involved 6 (time) levels, which could be seen as a "universal
template for metaphor". His extraordinary and revolutionary one:many
mapping of the 64-bit binary tree can be shown to 'explain':
Science has not solved the problem of where qualia "come from". The 12-d psychophysical model postulates that they existed at the photon and string level since the big bang; and that if you posit them from the outset a 12-dimensional psychophysical model of cosmogony, Life and evolution follows as night follows day.
You make clear that you have a professional/financial -- and perhaps psychological -- prejudice in favour of the standard model, and 'hard science' generally. So you may be tempted to somehow "avoid" seeing the facts in their totality. Or you may simply be incapable at present of experiencing your own consiousness as a space-time event -- and thereby be incapable of experiencing the full pleroma of the universe ... It is a wonderful feeling (on a good day). But, according to the psychoneurological (left/right brain) component of the model that I personally began with, due to the factor of suppresssion and repression you yourself may "block out" any desire to experience "the music of the spheres". All of our modern Western science would seem to have begun with the Sumero-Chaldeans' and Babylonians' mapping of the Zodiacal heavens in the "fossil science" of 12-d astrology (which Lofting also shows can be analysed in terms of his 'universal template'); and this epoch in history (Campbell shows, vide The Masks of God) also marked the transition from right brain)matriarchy to (left brain) patriarchy -- accompanied by a new concomitant emphasis on the dimension of Time. Newton postulates Absolute Space and Time. But we also know that he was at least as much an alchemist/astrologer, and that he called gravity "a metaphor for the music of the spheres" ... I believe I show that quantum gravity IS consciousness, is us, IS "the music of the spheres".
You may say "all this is not science". Well, Lofting's model and mine have many, many other features that I have not space even to mention here. I would claim the 12-d model (which Lofting's 6-d model to a large degree validates) comprises a *meta*scientific theory of everything, i.e. since it makes a synthesis of GR and QM (in a 12-dimensional theory of quantum gravity), religion, philosophy, and psychology -- and appears to explain a few things that present science cannot (e.g. consciousness, and why we have no final account of what is meant by mass, charge, etc.)
As David Chalmers has brilliantly made clear, something else will be needed BEYOND the physical laws to explain consciousness; and he posits the need for an experiential and information state -- which the 12-d model also provides.
The model will in due course be testable, I believe. But for the moment, it is so compelling as metascience that it cannot -- or should not -- be ignored, in my view. (If it were just "pseudoscientific rubbish"you, as a scientist, would simply ignore it, my friend; you would not even take the trouble to demean it as "Barron's stuff".)
Chris Lofting's homepage is at: www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
My homepage is at: http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~maximus/
Do let us know if you make any sense of all this. I somehow suspect that you will not :-)
>>"the medium of "extra-corporeal 'DNA'"" What on earth does this
>>I have worked for many years as a professional scientist and reviewed Ms's
>>for publication from some pretty far out authors. According to the way my
>>mind works, this is definitely not even wrong.
Burrow *probably* has in mind something like Dawkin's
>"memetic-genetic" model, which is an interesting conceptual extension of
>evolutionary theory. The stuff about the "higher dimensions" *does* sound
>like gobbledygook to me, too, however... the kindest thing I can say about
>it is that he is perhaps just carrying a literary conceit too far to be
> It also occurs to me that he is just showing an influence which we all,
>westerners, bear... the line of thought which is exemplified, among other
>places, in the Gospel of St. John, and its emphasis on the "word"
>(_logos_), and the "spirit" (_pneumos_). Barron shows no sign of being
>*aware* of this influence, as by acknowledging it (besides being
>unfashionable, it would just complicate his presentation even more, and who
>would want that?), but one thing gets clearer and clearer to me as I
>approach the half-century mark (having just this January 1 turned 49... the
>"big one" is coming up!)... and that is, that *all* of us are very deeply
>influenced by ideas, mindsets, world-views, and epistemic models that we
>are not *consciously* aware of being influenced by, and which we may even
> You are no doubt aware of the maxim "drive nature out with a pitchfork,
>and she will return by another door". I think the same is true for such
>things as the Gospel of St. John. It may seem like something from "long,
>long ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." but in fact it is right between
>your ears. :)
> The same is true for Plato, and Platonism. I think it will be "with us
>always", because it *is* us.
Yup. That's why it's desirable to "make sense" of it all as a (12-dimensional) totality, I believe, i.e. in terms of ALL the disciplines I list above :-)