Basically, there is only one most important thing, and nothing else: you. You is inside, the deeply deep silence.
And there are worlds, many worlds to be discovered by you. This is outside, the smallest step away from the silence.
Between you and anything else there are interfaces. You can discover yourself through these interfaces. And discovering yourself is discovering new worlds, and new interfaces. And vice versa.
Everything is about evolution. You, and all around you is changing, evolving continuously. We are all programmable biocomputers living in various evolution systems.
Our identities and belief systems are the programs running inside us and projecting worlds as we perceive everyday.
As Mérö László beautifully stated, the only role of entities living in evolution systems is to open as much channels as possible inside them, to let in the flow of evolution processes and enjoy the never ending beautiful show.
Photo by: Zé Lobato
5 responses so far ↓
Randolph Dible // November 16, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Hiya, I made extensive comments on the expansion community in LiveJournal… maybe I can copy and paste them onto here (its a lot, I hope it fits):
I’m starting to read: here’s some discussion points, if you’d be interested…
Interfaces: the “yous” (I placed in parentheses the plural subjective forms, but I believe your website used the singular; of course, both ways of looking at yourself are appropriate) and the “worlds” interface, that is, my term “subject-superject (object)” [from Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy called 'organic realism' based upon the 'actual-entity' as constituted by 'subjective form' and 'eternal object' (archetypal pattern or form), as actually being the 'subject-superject' to clarify] is noted by your usage of “interface.”
“Interfaces and worlds are infinite.” I share this view, and add that the subject is infinite-ly one, or the Infinitesimal [not as in small, but transcending the frame of reference of size or form, since it is the point which traces all form as relations among spaces distinguished by such a First Distinction in the Unmarked State which is called 'the Void' in that literature (cybersemiotics stemming from George Spencer-Brown) and the 'Absolute Infinite' by me.] I capitalize Infinitesimal to note its absolute singularity, that there can be only one such entity, the self-presentation of the Absolute, the ‘as-if-not-infinite’ for the Infinite to begin distinguishing its infinite parts (‘party’s to ’subjective forms’).
And of course, as you are familiar with the Orient(ing) philosophy, Samadhi is the Infinitesimal, is pure subjectivity, with its infinite ‘interfaces’ in the “densely-packed region” of the Tibetians, or in the “high-inflationary-period” of modern scientific cosmogenetics, as the point between the “big bang” of conception and the ‘prima ratios’ of first entities of the rational universe, between the singularity and the ‘event(ity) horizon’ (‘horizon of the infinite’ and the ‘point at infinity’ to mathematics) of the white hole that is life in experience, the radiation of what I call “sight-without-light” (pure seeing of the supreme being, seeing itself).
The infinite interfaces occur in the happening of samprajnata (conditional, occuring) samadhi, but the real springboard to the Infinite, to Nirvana is Asamprajnata Samadhi (‘without support’) which is purely or transcendently self-supporting, and infinitely, transcendently oneness, unicity of unity, to make a point being a bit redundant you know.
Re: we have some common ideas … (Part 2)
mostconducive
2006-11-15 08:01 pm UTC (link)
Okay, going on the quantumy link, I got to ’superposition,’ as all qualities of the supreme, in mathematics its called superjection or surjection… abstracted to superjectivity, of course (its in the word), opposed to subjectivity. And my point on these two ultimates (themselves I discuss at all times, the one and the subject and the other as the object of the subject) is that neither actually exists except in direct reference to the other (Taoism), and Whitehead calls it “intercoherence.”
Superposition is a ‘challenging concept’ precisely because its nature is exceedence of its being! Its is more than a being, its is the supreme being, greater than the first and last which is being-in-itself, the transcendental subject which is called the Spirit (negativity in God), it is God, as the Absolute Infinite, which cannot be grasped, PRECISELY because it is overflowing to or of our consciousness!
Consciousness is the ‘actual entity’ of the Spirit and God! to me, because neither of them ultimate two exist at all without their *interface* or intercoherence, which I have come to call ‘consciousness’ (see my Merrell-Wolff style aphorisms about it in my livejournal user profile bio).
So I’m at “superposition,” refreshing my hypertext-enhanced knowledge of quantum theory, thanks to your website… I will continue reading…
4:
mostconducive
2006-11-15 08:22 pm UTC (link)
The cat is both alive and dead, but also neither alive nor dead… its all the same paradoxical notion of the full-void, the “unmarked state” which I call Absolute Infinite, both self-containing and all-encompassing and finite and infinite, some have said ‘all-everything’… quantum theory is a useful paradigm indeed! See Edward Close’s “Transcendental Physics” book, at his website transcendentalphysics.com … he references George Spencer-Brown’s “Laws of Form” just like I do… see also my emails to and from him on my livejournal. Close is a good example of the unique perspective of the quantum paradigm … I have seen also Fred Alan Wolff’s “Parallel Universes” book, Karl Pribram’s (another Spencer-Brownian) “Holographic Universe”… etc. etc. …
Part 5 of my comments
mostconducive
2006-11-15 08:42 pm UTC (link)
John Lilly developed the “human biocomputer” gestalt. He was my late childhood hero. His “Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer” was written on a whole lot of government acid, when it was a legitimate research tool, in the “isolation tank” he invented to practice a modernized verson of meditation for his “Jnana Yoga” (I’m a good example of a Jnani) study of consciousness. He pioneered in the science of consciousness, and contributed his character, and his gestalt or motif.
It was originally through Lilly’s references that I was led to Spencer-Brown’s “Laws of Form” as a “guidebook into other universes,” that comment GSB himself corrected that it is a way of “getting back” to the Boolean elemental (this) One. I developed on this line of thought the Other Boolean elemental as not zero, but the Infinite herself.
My recognition of the true identity of the Boolean elements (one and not-one, variously called ‘zero’, the ‘infinite’ and ‘the unmarked state’) as the Spirit (‘one’ and ‘the same’) and God (the ‘Infinitely and Totally Other’ of Levainas’) is a sort of totalitarian-Heideggerian Kantian Ontotheology move, but due to the triplicity of the sign (‘Peircian Thirdness,’ drawing on semiotics), the third element is the observer of the Boolean system, which is consciousness itself in its true nature, but for the one and zero, it is the square root of negative one, whose value is the switch of switching logic, the ‘oscillation without duration’ of Spencer-Brown, it is called i, the imaginary number. This I do to unite the First Distinction with the First Dimension. … The implication go beyond the range of any particular field, even tras-disciplinary fields such as cyber-semiotics, for it is only in the realm of post-disciplinary works of abstraction, or what I call abstractivism in the school of life as the subject of subjectivity, that such concepts are being developed, and presented, from me to you in this case, right here and now, in this textual media of cyberspace, and in our lives.
Six… go ahead and take time to respond… I’m patient
mostconducive
2006-11-15 09:17 pm UTC (link)
I’m putting a lot out here, but I’m having fun doing it, and I hope with your references you can follow. Many people don’t, and end up calling what I’m talking about gibberish, and say I got it from a robot word-generator off the internet. How rude!
Anyway,…
Heidegger’s “Identity and Difference” posits the paradoxical identity, er, difference of these two notions. Difference is Distinction, and so is Identity, in the transcendental sense. To me this is geometrically (though not metrically, without extension) the Infinitesimal First Distinction as the mark upon the unmarked space. As the Derridean differance, it is also the opening or clearing of consciousness of the epoche (abstainence of interference of the overwhelming, for there to be continuous presence, to be a continuum) which to us, within it, is time, as the passing and persisting, beyond presence, but within presence. Time as the “oscillation without duration” between presence and absence, actuality and possibility, act and art (that thou, that you other) becomes the First Dimension, the first extension of the unmarked space, and hence the first phase-locked space, for the phase is the opening of the epoche, the extension of the real number line or the continuum. There are infinitely many continuums of subjective experience but we only inhabit this one because otherness takes root at the singularity.
… on your website I’m up to the ‘Spirit and Chaos’ link… can’t wait to read it, but I goota go… ttyl,
Randy
Penultimate Comments
mostconducive
2006-11-16 08:30 pm UTC (link)
Seeing the origination as transcendental objectivity (‘the object in superposition’) or superjectivity is the conclusion of my thesis, as it is on your website. Is that S. Lem’s view also?
Transcendental, or ‘pure’ subjectivity is unicity (oneness), singularity, the Infinitesimal with mathematical precision. Unity is also the First Distinction (see Spencer-Brown), Difference itself (the philosophical theme, also see Derridean difference).
Value is, to me, to connote Form, its intercoherent other. Form (the source of which is distinction as perfect continence, from the two-value logic of Spencer-Brown’s “Laws of Form”) is the relation of relativity, and value (aka meaning and significance) is the relevance or content of the formal. I define reality (finity and also consciousness) as relativity and relevance, the junction of faction and function, passion and action, praxis and axis.
Spirit, as you call the force behind the energy as order, distinct from the chaos, is Maxwell’s sorting demon, responsible for extropy or dis-entropy (‘invisible world which is in equilibrium with the visible’ or the invisible world for equilibrium to be visible), which comprehends entropy or chaos. The author of “The Philosophical Scientist” suggests that the sorting demon (the demon-strata) proves (by the duality of demonstration and proof) an original syntax called Logos, which is the Spirit, the transcendental disentropy. Its not a famous book, but worth a mention, as it is an easy read and quite remarkable.
Last Comments
mostconducive
2006-11-16 08:31 pm UTC (link)
Integrity is the unity in the world, the equilibrium, and in that sense it is the Spirit, I agree.
To me the unconscious is the subconscious and the superconscious, collective and individual, collection, correction, connection.
Being a fan of Lilly, you simply must follow the references to George Spencer-Brown. My only ultimate disagreement with him is his nihilistic presentation, required for his logic, but it neglects the infinite, I believe. And his Form neglects Value. His main contribution to Form is that it condenses (by the ‘Law of Condensation’) to the form of distinction. I agree, and see the other way around, that value explodes to the meaning of meaning ad infinitum, which I call pure objectivity, Profundity (since the form of distinction is unity or pure subjectivity).
“Programming and Metaprogramming the Human Biocomputer” is very good, although his other books have more references to Spencer-Brown’s work. Also check out a book of similar title, seemingly by John Lilly, but admittedly channeled by a psychic, published in 2002, after his death, by the creators of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS in Florida).
Last comment (from ‘you’ introduction): to me , silence and sight are the noumenal sources of phenomena.
Hope you liked my extensive comments!
Randy
csbartus // November 17, 2006 at 2:20 am
Thanks Randy for your extensive “intrusion” in my blog
)
I’m posting here my comments until I’ll make an account on your forum.
First of all, thanks for underpinning my observations with a common vocabulary (subject-superject, Infinitesimal, …) from now on I have the keywords to learn more about these ideas. And you pointed out several books and authors too … thats a good help thx!
The language difference … I’m trying to use as simplest words as possible to hit a larger audience … and I’m translating from Hungarian and Romanian where the English translation of these concepts are missing to me.
On your ideas:
1. Holographic Universe
My friends at Strategic Research Institute Hungary are dealing heavily with this subject, Last month they had a very interesting conference on Unifying Theories. You can have interesting links in this page: http://metaelmelet.hu/egyelm/program_en.html
Which is interesting, they focus on the so called Quantum Holo-Matrix, which unifies Quantum Theory, Information Theory and Mathematics (Logics through matrix calculus)
Here is an abstract: http://metaelmelet.hu/egyelm/abs/Dienes_Istvan.pdf
This is also related to sqrt(-1) ~ i ~ consciousness ~ Observer.
I’ll take a time to respond this in my blog later.
2. Stanislaw Lem on superjectivity
He was a first class scientist over all, dealing only with ’scientific’ facts … therefore he is stating that:
a. The Universe, the Object is only an illusion, its an inflation without any scientific base.
b. Certainly we have a system relating ourselves to Everything (the brain’s limbic system) — so there is a possibility to connect Object to Subject.
c. I’m trying to quote him: “In the state of total pureness the world lets us know that we can defeat it only throughout itself.” … “In this moment we feel that our deepest inner self is touching the only existent real world”
–> but this latest idea was taken from “Hi’s Masters Voice” book which is “sci-fi”, not science.
So the answer to you is definitively YES, Lem was aware about it.
He used a nice trick: his speculations were written in sci-fi books, without being limited by academy.
Thanks a lot,
cs.
Zé Lobato // November 17, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Dear csbartus,
Like you said in your flickr mail to me, i gonna use your words,”I don’t really understand why you can’t admire photos in one place.” I admire photos in many places, i leave professionally tooking photos for more than 38 years, and now i am admiring a photo take by me and stolen from my flickr page by you, without asking a permission for that and principally without give the credits for the image author for the photo you are using to ilustrate your blog! You are a sucker in my point of view, a image sucker!
I don’t mind if i found pictures made by me in blogs or flickrs or any other amateurs use, but i really care for a credit use and a link for the authors page at least!
This is the minimum asked and normally used in my concept! Do you like see a text wrote by you used integrally in other page and sign by other?!!!!!
Zé Lobato
csbartus // January 2, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Please Zé check if these credits are correct for you. Thanks & Happy New Year.
ellaela-gd // May 11, 2009 at 3:02 pm
2009 navitel