Some scientist has recently discovered some thing relevant about the brain Adrian - I'll see if I can find it.
On Aug 28, 2:49 am, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To continue where I left off last. [in the hope of] > > Roland Bartes is right: Heterogeneity. Our society politics to > homogenise us into tereotypes > on an ant colony. tying us down to the workbench. Contrariwise ann E. that > includes sentience > includes individual variety. Not a fingerprint, hair parting, walk, talk, > snowflake, flower > bud. cat or whatever but it is uniquely individual. That boils down to a > fairly large number of > qualitites mixed up by degrees of each in combination. Ignoring whether or > not Astrology is > valid it is one of the more complex characterologies in three levels as done > in Alchemy as > body, mind and spirit or body, ideas and universal abstractions. The I-Ching > is slightly more > complex and not quite binary as Yin and Yang but trinary > > That is, just as for DNA messaging, we get Yin and Yang static and > Yin and Yang dynamic where > Yin and Yang change into and out of each other, which typically reduces to a > set of three, > twice repeated for heaven above and earth below or as intangibly real and > sensorily tanible > apparent. It makes up 4096 individual possibilities, too many for any > individual to categorise. > So we have to learn to accept we cannot know it all and need others in the > right kinf of > combination to get a true pattern. You cannot have two dynamics in one > trigram as they will > contradict and null each other. So it's always two statics, one dynamic per > trigram. > > In an ever dynamic real world setup without absolutes, only > variables, that's inevitable. The > forebrain cortex, and I've been unable to ascertain this for the hindbrain > cortex, is studded > all over with a sheet of 50 high stacks of transducer type cells which far > outreach math's > rather limited 3 variables max in a formula. We'd need some weirdo new > computer chip design to > match that, not even quantum computing could do. > > It re-introduces true democracy, not the farce we have now, in which > as groups we can > communally contribute to the kind of thing Fred Hoyle is into. It tackles > every aspect of a > given whole, unit or system as several SF writers have explored, such that > all possibilities > are weighed up together and perhaps the dominant ones picked up on. > > This creates the interesting exercise whereby we have to work on how > each different notions of > anybody can be fitted together as a whole, somewhat describably as a > universal. Whether that's > done by empathy or telepathy does not matter. It means stretching our minds > to understand > others or transcending ours or getting off the square we occupy. It seems to > mean, think > globally, act locally??? Social control at large by a small elite won't work. > It has not for > millenia. > > Adrian. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
