Friday, February 13, 2009

Chapter 15 seems like a continuation of 14, so here you go!

In general, tools for regularizing perceptual matters themselves have a perceptual relationship to the user. The sure feel of a wrench in the hand. But it might also be considered an emotional relationship. I like the feel of my tools. Tools for regularizing conceptual matters generally have an emotional relationship to the user. Words, gestures; but also perceptual tools which create perceptual patterns which can have primarily emotive value. The artist. The poet.

No words -- tools -- have absolute meanings. Concepts may be considered percepts from some other point of view. Motions may be considered emotions. But at least this minimal configuration cannot be reduced further. There are no universes conceivable in which perception and motion describe, exhaustively, that universe. There are no universes bereft of emotion. On that minimal configuration, we must agree.

We must agree because no other construing can make sense any longer. Tools must make sense in order to be useful. There may be an ending. Ambiguities revealed also end the mystery which made them so compelling. But it cannot be right to preserve ambiguity when it no longer exists. That is the only evil. It is frightening to imagine a language to account for everything -- to render everything understandable. So many of our activities will have to change drastically. But that has always been the case. The only difference is in scale.

And this language preserves otherness. There is no longer any basis for judging the validity -- the truth value -- of any other. Of any other culture, way of life, or person. The judgement itself becomes evil. Science is the attempt at a universal language, which, paradoxically, through its presumption that it is value free, ends up by judging every other which is not organized scientifically. Science is truly value-free, and that is the only condemnation necessary to awaken and realize that it cannot be a universal language. No universe is conceivable without emotion.

In a common sense way, we all know that otherness, paradox, or the reductive existence of a least two is essential for any minimal universe. Absolute assimilation is thereby the equivalent of non-existence. Likewise, absolute dissociation between self and other is impossible or unthinkable.

The quality of pattern-recognizing mind that is now predominant on the earth is the ability to organize complex perceptual motions, according to the mathematical language, as "universal laws". At least that is the apparently predominating quality of mind. "Nature" may yet have the last word. Still, the presumption is that this rational mind is predominant, and that these "universal laws" are valid for all physical existence throughout the universe. A further assumption is made that they are approximations which have proven validity within the known cosmos. So far as we can see with the aid of various perceptual and conceptual tools, the laws are valid. Apparently, as the tool inventory increases, these universal laws now apparently valid will be shown as approximations. In infinite universe, therefore, their validity is approximately nil.

"Infinite Universe" would include other dimensional structures. Anything other than what we can now conceive. In other words, our universal laws express the limits of our universe. But limits approached provide the necessity for change. If limits are approached too closely, that change is explosive. The future is always a surprise. We must not close our minds because of what was once exiting in its truth -- in the Past.

What, then, are the universal physical laws upon which we place so much trust? They are precisely tools for determining the degree to which we must share the same corner of perceptual -- moving -- universe. They determine the degree to which we must agree in order to share this universe.

Beyond what we can perceive, they are not universal. It is merely boastful to presume that they are. A pronouncement of specialness, and a fear of hostility. And they only describe one facet of this corner of the universe. They leave out emotion.

"Are there other universal laws than those we have 'discovered'?"

It is fruitless to consider that matter. This is the corner of the universe we have been fated to inhabit. These are the laws we have been fated to uncover. It is far too late now to imagine other universes. Or too early. A self which denies the laws of our universe forsakes membership. In the human realm, he is dead. In other realms, he merely ceases to exist. However, other universes may exist. Don't wait for them to call on the phone, though.

It is a common problem in quantum physics to wonder if information can be conveyed instantaneously. This problem, historically stems from Einstein and other's unwillingness to accept the precepts of quantum mechanics, whereby existence is seen to be a probability function. At the extremes of the physical universe -- the perceptual moving universe --existence can not even theoretically be known beyond a "cloud of probability". The act of perception -- measurement -- is said to "collapse" the probability function such that existence is either determined or not. However, according to Heisenberg, not everything can be known about the percept whose existence can be determined. If its exact location is to be known, then its momentum cannot be known, and vice-versa. This is the uncertainty principle. An apparently universal law.

The problem of instantaneous conveying of information comes in when it is observed that percepts are often inexorably paired with other percepts. Such a pair can be separated in space. If the existence and some quality of one percept in the pair is determined, the other is also determined, even though according to physical theory, nothing can be known about the physically distant percept prior to the act of perception. And the act of perception is limited by the speed of light. Perceptual information cannot travel faster. But in this case, information seems to have been conveyed instantaneously. What is the structure of physical universe that allows this to occur, scientists want to know. Einstein was disturbed, because he had determined the absolute limit of the propagation of perceptual information to be that of the speed of light. All information is conveyed according to this limit, in a perceptual universe.

It might anger some scientists to consider the connection between paired percepts to be a conceptual one. In a physical universe apart from mind, concepts cannot be prior to physical events. They are a property of mind, and arise from the experimenter and not the experiments. However, there are certain rather obvious consequences of quantum physics that are often overlooked: A single percept fills the universe with its probability function. If there are no other percepts, that probability function is universe. In a reductive universe of one self and one other, therefore, the probability function of each is affected by that of the other. This, of course, is all abstraction, because we are always conceiving of such scenarios from some outside vantage -- as though we could do such a thing.

Physicists do not deal in abstraction. There is a wonderful paradox here. Physicists deal with what exists concretely -- not abstractly. And yet, prior to quantum physics, they have assumed their position outside the realm of the percepts perceived by them. The universe exists in abstraction until the act of perception occurs which makes it concrete. That is to say, physical universe is known only by perception -- never in the abstract. The basic rule of science. Now with quantum physics, at least parts of the universe are actually determined by perception. Prior to that perception, of course, must be some conception of what is about to be perceived. Complex instruments need to be invented such that quantum mechanical perceptions can be made.

Now the physicist can never be sure that the universe of his perception is not merely the universe of his conception. At least at the reductive limits, he has entered into the picture according to the uncertainty principle. He no longer perceives what is there from some passive remove. He is connected by the act of perception. Whatever causes him to look here or there, this way or that, is now a part of what he perceives.

Now abstraction must be clarified. Abstraction is a universe that is totally in the mind. The practical physicist does not deal in abstraction. The quantum physicist, however, cannot inexorably determine the dividing line between what is in the mind and what is other. His universe may be abstract or concrete depending only on the priority of conception or perception. At the limits of perception, it is not at all clear which is prior.

Let's look again at a reductive universe of two. It can be said to have been fated that the two lonely percepts bear relationship to one another. If they are not connected perceptually; that is, by motion -- the case of the instant transmission of information referred to above -- then they are connected conceptually. This conceptual connection may be considered an emotional connection that is mutual or it may be inherent in the mind that is other to this reductive universe.

However, if we infer an other mind, then we have extended universe beyond its bounds of two percepts. But there is no universe in abstraction, and other mind must always be inferred if the conceptual relationship between percepts is not inherent in them, but is fated, or inherent in other mind.

Actually, the universe is myriad -- but there are some things which must be said about its reductive arrangement. To be conceived, universe must consist at least of self and other. To be perceived, other must be connected by motion. Motion, however, is instigated by emotional attraction that must be fated. There is, then, a quality at the reductive level, to the conceptual relationship between self and other. It can be a neutral relationship, in which case the mind of some other is required -- other to the two. It can be an attractive relationship in which case the attraction may be fated. It is interesting to note that in our universe, any motion between two percepts alone is always motion towards. There is no repulsion. Space-time is curved.

The light from the stars is not a spontaneous emission. It exists as a reminder that our universe is connected. All that has come together is in constant, moving, perceptual contact by the propagation of light waves in "space".

Fate, in the everyday universe, is the matter of accident. Those things which occur beyond our control. That is, beyond our ability to do anything about them or to predict their occurrence. These are said to be fated. In fact, most every activity in our everyday world is a response to fate. We control and understand very little. What we can do is to recognize patterns in the workings of fate, such that we insure our continued existence to the limits of probability. There is always, of course, an absolute limit beyond which we are helpless.

In the reductive universe, the fate of two percepts in motion is ineluctable. There is no direction for motion that will prevent their eventual collision. That collision would entail either that they conjoin and become a single percept, or that they forever meet and separate. However, in the reductive universe, we are really speaking only of probability clouds. And so the motion of percepts, in either response to their fate, can be expressed according to a single probability function. There is no difference whether they are in motion or not -- whether their relationship is conceptual or perceptual -- whether, indeed, they are concepts or percepts. Until mind is inferred.

Mind need have no existence in the manner of percepts or concepts. Mind is the pattern maker. It is that which results from a complex enough dynamic of concepts, percepts, motions, and emotions so as to have connection with other through definition of self or vice-versa. Mind and universe are eternally other, lest mind be universe, or universe be mind.

If the fate of a pair of percepts, which may be concepts in motion, which motion is initiated by emotion; If the fate of a pair of percepts in ineluctable, then they may be considered one in opposition to mind. If the universe apart from mind consists of two concepts, their relationship has been fated as such by mind. A conceptual relationship becomes a perceptual one when emotion arises. If universe apart from mind is all fated by mind, then mind and universe may be consisted one. If universe outside of mind is connected to mind in a manner not wholly originated in mind, then the existence of other mind must be inferred. Conceptual relationship between mind and other mind in turn depends on yet a third mind. Movement between minds -- a perceptual connection -- depends on either mutual emotion or the fate that inheres in third mind.

In our everyday world, we assume that fate has made the random connections which have led to our existence as human minds. We assume that the recombination of the stuff of the universe through the evolution of life on earth has been the result of hazardous -- or random -- meetings. These recombinations which result in turn are faced with random environment which determines which combinations may bear further fruit. Random environment in turn takes on attributes which are patterned according to the evolution of life. The life on earth -- or biosphere -- eventually overcomes the purely random events by which universe seems to be tending toward disorderliness, and instills a kind of anti-random process which is known as life. The conflict between the random and the anti-random. Between death and life is what -- over time -- has led to our existence.

We commonly assume that emotion is a purely human attribute. It may be possible to construe emotion as a universal attribute. Indeed, I think there is no choice. If instead of assuming that two giraffes, say, mate because they happen to meet, we assume some emotional attraction, then we will have to grossly alter our conception of emotion.

According to the foregoing, it must be recalled that motion is a function of time. The only sensible means for assuming the separation of percepts in motion in a reductive universe is time. Percepts not in motion, if there are two, must be connected conceptually. Their separation is not time-bound. In this reductive universe, emotion is a prognostication or a memory, depending on the direction of time. Percepts having mutual emotion will move toward or away from one another. Conceptual or perceptual relationships may be fated. Motions may be fated. But an emotion, once felt, can no longer be considered the action of fate. That is when other mind loses control. Loses the origination of connection. Felt emotions destroy origination.

Now suppose that, instead of assuming that all of the hazardous meetings that precede our existence have been merely accidents, we assume them to have occurred emotionally. We are here. Either it is fated -- in which case mind other than self has been involved, though we may have no emotional attachment to that mind. Or the various meetings have been the result of the prognostication of emotion. Emotion is the attraction to what one is fated to be attracted to. Emotion prognosticates perceptual relationship. That is, emotion timelessly foretells a relationship that only time will make perceptual. In the past we were connected to our mothers --we were one. Our emotion is the timeless prognostication of that connection. Time has no direction. Memory predicts.

We meet a member of the opposite sex. Our emotion is a timeless prognostication of connection. If the connection is strong, the emotion prior to consummation is painful. Some part of us is felt to be cut-off. But pain is a part of living, and should not be shunned. There are worse pains.

Appearance and reality function equivalently relative to human emotion. 0nly we can know what we really feel. 0nly we can know what is real. Part of that reality is always the existence of other. If we knowingly create the appearance of reality -- when in our hearts we know it to be false -- we will always cause pain. Some pain is needed. Time is our prison. But the pain caused of lies is a fruitless pain. Don't pretend unless you have to. Ultimately, there is no need.

To set up a goal and then to achieve it is very gratifying. This gratification confirms the existence of our will. In the West, that is equivalent to saying that it confirms the existence of our minds, whereby mind is defined as that which can take into itself what is perceptual or conceptual other. I see the hilltop. Only time separates my position here and my position there if I am strong, skillful, lucky, and have the will. I have lost my old position, but I have now the hilltop and from there many more goals will be reachable.

But will is only a partial attribute of mind. It is a lie -- a delusion -- when it is seen to represent the whole story. If we assume that it is only through will that our lives become meaningful, then we cut our selves off absolutely from the fabric of existence out of which we have sprung. Ultimately, we can't know why we do everything we do. Mostly we react to what fate throws our way. It is a delusion to believe that we can control very much. And if we succumb to the delusion, we progressively cut ourselves off from the only sustenance -- all of the universe.

That separation is not manifest through pain, but through numbness. We all live in a literal limbo, so long as we blind ourselves to our connections to the universe. It is an emotional blindness. We cut off the heartstrings. Ego is the scalpel, and the balm. Ego cuts us off. Ego makes us numb. I can offer no proof that the universe is the way I am suggesting here. Only you can do that. All I can tell you is that wonderful things can happen if you let go. The story of your life will write itself. Baffling coincidence will provide release from what you thought you had to find -- to figure out -- inside your own tiny mind. The answers are written as on a billboard all around you. I can't prove it to you. All I can do is ask you to believe that I have seen such answers, and that, If you let go you will too.

To be lucky is sometimes more gratifying than to succeed in an exercise of will. To be emotionally attracted to something and to have that something. Supposing you fall in love. There will be a connection there, if in your universe that is what love means. If you feel nothing, there will be no connection. Emotion is subject apparently to will, circumstance, words, etc. To the whole panoply of interpretation to which motion is subject. But will is an inhibitor of emotion. Willfully employed words will quench emotion. Poetry sets it afire. Motion is timebound. Emotion is perpetual.

So there is immortality, but it exists only in the moment. When you are connected to the entire universe --past, present, and future --you are immortal. To cut yourself off is a fate far worse than death. To attempt to refuse death is to refuse the moment, and assure that you are not immortal. If connections are severed, there is no future. And the past becomes meaningless accident. There would be no difference between a past that is void, and the one we remember, if we create a vacant future. All the myriad connections that led to the point of destruction would be mistakes. No different at all from the swirling chaos of physical universe that is other because we believe it to be dead. The balance of the universe is always held in the moment. Right now. And each individual is responsible --though only to himself. Meaning is up to everyone right now. If we imagine a grim future, we create it. If we feel depressed, we create the reasons. Optimism itself is the only optimistic future. Don't forget. And it's so simple to remember -- all the connections.

If any of emotion, concept, motion or percept are removed from the universe, meaning and existence are impossible. Accidents that are merely accidents are always dead -- apart from mind. Accidents that lead somewhere are always emotional. The attempt to remove accident from existence is an attempt to remove emotion.

You can't get to heaven by believing in someone else. You can't be immortal that simply. There is no such insurance policy. You must simply believe in yourself. Christ's work is finished. He has brought you here, and now you must believe in yourself. Everyone is the savior.

"My God, you don't stop. I indulge you and I try to offer advice, and I keep to myself what I really think, but you don't stop. You're not just preaching, you're ranting!"

I really can't help it. I made the mistake of rereading parts of this. It's true. I know it's true. I'm shaking with the truth. Maybe it's just the cold, or like when the wind shakes the boat and I can't tell whether it's the wind or my excitement, but I'm shaking, and I know this is true.

"For Christ's sake! You don't believe in truth. You said so yourself. This isn't truth. This is your belief. Now the problem is to get somebody to believe you. I'm skeptical. You're hardly making sense. You cross too many bounds. Too many fields."

I know. You're right. I can't prove anything. I don't want to prove anything. There's plenty of time for people to fool with proving things. But this is important. It has to be done now -- no later. People have to start to believe. I can't wait until I can say it better. It's now or never. But how do I go on? I'm getting shaky.

No comments: