The Conservation of Information Law__The Inverse Square Law of Information and Sound Communication Processing of, and It’s Affectiveness__The More Information and Communication, The Less Understanding and Affectiveness/Effectiveness of__Is Solvable...???
(continued second link...)
While the convergence in knowledge is happening at a fast pace, are we truly processing the information, to an actual world reality…? It seems quite clear to me, we are not__But why not…? This morning, as I was awakening my groggy mind, while still lying in bed, I realized my mind was doing its normal early morning processing. This is not unusual, but what it was processing was unusual. My mind had sub-consciously drifted back to my `72 era thinking about that recent global epiphany, I’d then had. Awakening in a past state of memory is often very interesting, but this morning was especially interesting, as it was the exact problem area I’d been working on when I went to bed last night. That problem was, ‘How does our mind possibly process the tremendous amount of information and complexity, into any form of sensible explanation, not only to ourselves__but more importantly, to the world of others…?’
I think I was first thinking about the two halves of the brain, being basically connected by that one tiny nerve string between the major halves. I was wondering about this maybe being the safety valve of the brain/mind’s two halves, that may keep the circuits from over-loading, then I realized the entire local and global mind would require a similar circuit, to keep it from over-loading, and realized I’d thought about this very area back in `72.
When minds process for the greater public use, all the many varied opinions must have a mechanism of transferring information from individuals to groups of individuals__How does this function...? This is where my natural analytic triadic a priori thinking enters the picture. I hadn’t realized it til this morning, that probably most of us are wired quite differently, due to possibly genetics or early family influences__but anyway, I realized I’d always been wired triadically, and this simply means having a three state mind__Maybe from birth, I don’t know. Anyway, I’ve always seen the world from a three views perspectival position. This would be most easily stated as, true, false and the actual, or as, good, bad and the actual, which could interpret academically as the monadic, dyadic and triadic abstraction layers of mind. I would also interpret it as the two fundamental particulars, and one universal view.
Yet, from reading many members posts, here at ToeQuest, it seems to me as almost all others process the world from a dual perspectives view, while I process the same naturally, from a three perspectives view. Others will have to let me know if this is true, as I remember this as my truth from early childhood on. I was always spouting some universal view when others talked about particular views__It was just normal to me__I even kid on the universal level’s view__But maybe I’m not normal, or I at least process information differently than many others. Even my brother and sisters always commented how philosophical I was, before I ever read any philosophers__and somehow, I even realized this was true, even in grammar school__but I was around a very philosophical grandfather, for my early years__That may be the whole bit of it.
Anyway to me, the mind processes complex informations in public by making use of the third level of universal abstraction, which would be the public commons’ super-consciousness metaphysical state of just being the existing forum of inter-communication of all voices__Yet we take this huge dynamic process for granted. This is the third I/mind that is always present, to contain, process and pass the information from one spirit to another. It’s no mystical thing, it’s just the mental/physical reality of all public processing. This public process meters/filters all communication through its sieve of acceptability__which greatly varies with all members present, in all the varied conversations that do take place globally, or locally...
I mentioned this fact both last year and this year, at the philosophy meetings I attend every summer, but few really understood what I was saying. Two years ago I compared it to Gandhi’s ‘Non-violent force’, which he stated years ago, which I interpreted to the group as his manipulation of the natural moral/ethical public civic spirit of the times__and that this public spirit is not passive, as most would think. It has a very active influence on us all. It’s simply that civil spirit most people carry in public__that actually actively influences everyone’s actions__when in the public square, or any public communication forum of information, etc. To me, this acts similar to that single nerve strand feed between the two halves of the brain__yet serves the same function in public not to overload the public circuits__Only so much information can be processed, and this civil civic spirit filters all messages…
But, the question that needs be asked is, ‘Is this filtering good or bad’, and does it promote truths or lies__rights or wrongs…? Let’s take a look at it from the Early Greeks, and a few others. Heraclitus and Laotzu’s minds functioned more from the universal perspectives than did the later Greeks. This is quite obvious by just a simple comparison, which I’ll skip, but the fact remains that not many after processed information this openly, except maybe Ibn Sina and C.S.Peirce. What I’m pointing out is the three stages of mind evolutions__1, 2, 3__that SB_UK has often pointed out__But I may see it a bit differently. To me first stage evolution of mind went from fight or flight, to civil community, to universal understandings of civil communities. Second stage evolution of mind went from civil communities’ understandings, and universal understandings of communities, to what I have named, ‘The Oedipus complex of an academic abstraction layer’, which falsely interpreted individual freedoms and liberties as a false ‘Duty to state’__Under Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. I see this as culture’s devolution and not its evolution__as most see. They also took the older sensible universal understandings of the public spirit, and subverted them to a much narrower dyadic interpretation, of the earlier triadic interpretations of the Greek citizens, from Heraclitus to the early and later Pythagoreans, who had developed a clear, and very viable, triadic universalist school of Greek thought__Which included the gray areas of the included middle__The mean terms between extremes...
What I now see as the stage three mind awakening, is its final possible realization of this stormy passage, from the monadic fight or flight fundamental states, through the triadic/dyadic states, devolving into the purely dyadic states, and now recovering that greatest of triadic states of mind__Again. This battle’s been raging on the back burners of sense and mind since the early Greeks, and was temporarily revived by Ibn Sina and others, to create the great European Enlightenment and Reformation, but with massive blinders on, to the true facts of the origins of this enlightenment information’s sources__Which was the Arabic speaking lands…
The monadic, dyadic and triadic categories lists of philosophical history have been most ignored, but in order to understand the voracity of the above information, all it takes is a quick glance at the categories lists’ comparisons, of all these eras, and one is quickly convinced of its truths. It’s very clear and easy to see the evolution of all the thought categories__which would be the real categories of thought of these eras__which have existed at varying times of history, just by scanning a few pages of these era’s philosophical categories’ lists__Then all doubts are removed. ...
I’d next like to take these ideas back to the metaphysical-physical reality of the public mind's actualities, of what I mentioned above about the civil civic spirit’s influence on us all. Few may have ever realized or thought much about the God-factor actual in the public mind, but this is that same public spirit we all must confront when we enter any public place or forum. It consists of all personalities, from the gentlest to the most arrogant, and none of us can escape these facts. If any of you have had the chance to attend even the friendliest of academic groups, you would quickly realize this seemingly friendly group can become very angry and arrogant, when certain boundaries of right thought(in their opinions) is crossed, as I usually cross the borders quite regularly. I’ve seen highly educated people act so rude and crude, it’s unimaginable__Not even a bunch of bikers is as crude, rude and just plain arrogant__They take the cake. I’ve often tried to enter the huge global epiphany I had, even with a scientific foundation and method, but find it near impossible for them to even begin to process such ideas__and it’s not from not having the intelligences, it’s simply against their dominant ideological belief systems__And many of these same academics are PhD scientists, of one field or another__Beliefs of all kinds are near impossible to break through...
Imo, generally here’s how it works__psychology simply asks the ego for the truth, due to the fact there’s nothing else to ask, if one doesn’t have a mathematical background__ and logic simply asks its knowledge of math’s functions for the truth. Now, when one is present in one of these academic groups, do you think it’s possible to use or state either one of these truths? Well it’s not__at least not in my experience, as academics seem more interested in manipulating the public forum to their desired belief, than do they have any interest in the truths of either psychology or science. Oh they’ll start using science and or psychologies to defend their own beliefs, after they’ve evilly taken over the forums, by lying about all other members’ ideas presented__So you can well imagine why such groups never process much of the information they try, or not try, to process. My experience of human psychology and logic is one of one-up-mans-ship, to the point of total destructive evil...
And now we are entering a world where governments are, by necessity of market crashes, partnering with global-corporations__world wide__Is this a China first policy, or evolution’s self-designed destiny...? I think they’ll require a powerful mathematical manager of human affairs, from all I’ve seen of mixing power and people at scales of this size__How will we, as citizens and governments in this new organization of people and markets, truly achieve that all needed interpretation of information and communication, necessary for these new understandings...? Will the conservation of information law save the day…? What is the inverse square law of information and sound communication processing of, and it’s affectiveness all about…? I’ve earlier stated it as, ‘The more information and communication, the less understanding and affectiveness/effectiveness of__We truly possess__But is this problem solvable...? Imo, we need a new universal grammar, and a new realization about the linguistics of random events, forming uniform progressions. Just as in physics’ cosmology of eons ago, or where new stars and galaxies are now being formed, random events have always evolved into new uniform progressions and formations__I do not expect this to change, but our assistance is also required, as we are truly a major part of this new evolution of markets and people.
I have suggested new and esthetically computerized law and money systems, as our way forward, but this will take much re-assessing of all people’s present global views, ideologies and strong held beliefs. I hope some can begin seeing through the madness a bit more, by what I’ve written in this post__and after re-reading this thread and my philosophy thread, I’m still convinced there’s almost enough information for a clear understanding, if really taken seriously from these two threads beginnings. Yes, more needs to be stated and theorized, but there’s quite a start here, from all these threads participants...
In the future we’ll have to discuss the differences between the self-created reals, the not-reals and the self-discovered reals__which would actually be the major differences between idealisms and ideal realisms__Which I prefer... But, if we were all to use a positive theorizing scientific method of possible futures, with our sound imaginations', we could start to realize our real goal of building totally natural communities, once again__to beautify this over-commercialized ugly giant of a planet. I still have more hope and optimism than ever, that we will get there...
No comments:
Post a Comment