Steve, I really enjoy and on a deep level trust your sharings with me -- you are a kindred pioneer, which is a rare treat in my life to find.
I've noticed I'm unable to tell if someone is "far ahead of me", so I aim at "accepting the fullness of the other's power" and "letting them all the way in" as my default mode -- my life at 70 is a daily meandering, rather unfettered by scheduled duties, allowing many daily episodes of deeper experience -- my local space becomes more open pretty and pleasant -- watching a man practicing letting the beach wind raise his parawing on my left, and on my right a lady competently flying a 4 foot hawk shaped kite from 10 to 60 feet up, repeatedly -- on the Net, starting to deepen my collaboration with an age 25 MD multiple sclerosis researcher in Isfahan, Iran since Christmas, editing his team's papers in English, and suggesting ways in which they could rapidly check out the WC Monte methanol formaldehyde toxicity paradigm, my personal heroic crusade now for 14 years -- never having studied biochemistry or medicine -- yet able to support intrepid scientists -- you might be interested in glancing at some of my recent posts, not the notably Woo Woo ones, on rmforall.blogspot.com , to see me at my linear best... within the fellowship of service, Rich On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Rich - > > Thank you for "yet another" attempt to bridge the more familiar, linear (in > several senses of the term) style of our discourse here with your own > usually somewhat non-linear (in several senses of the term) mode of speech. > This group was formed roughly along the ideals of informally discussing > Complexity theory which is a close Correlate of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. > > Notable scientists have indulged (embraced, depended on) near-mystical > language and metaphors to try to grasp and to explain the universe as they > apprehended it. My most notable example (in my mind) is Physicist David > Bohm's work in QM and explanations of the EPR Paradox. His _Wholeness and > the Implicate Order. His own Rheomode, while not as mystical sounding as > what Doug referred to as semi-hysterical sentences leading semi-hysterical > paragraphs (referring to Fred Davis' work you presented us with), does > attempt to establish a language based in familiar natural English but > without some of the assumptions specifically about causality implied in > Subject-Verb-Object distinctions. I'm very compelled by this work. By > all of his work. > > I accept what you are referring to as "state-specific communication" and in > fact believe that except for languages as deliberately formalized to > *remove* implicit state (e.g. computer languages eliminating "side > effects"), *ALL* communication is state-specific. I do (almost) resonate > with some of the language of your posts but am put on caution by a couple of > things: The most notable is the regular use of *absolutes* (my emphasis > below): > > *all* potential and kinetic > energy, momentum, angular momentum, positive and negative charge, and > so on for many such items in abstract geometries -- just as the waves > on a vast flat pond also *all* add up to zero no matter how long and > complex the *forever* evolving geometric patterns with a *frictionless* > fluid -- > > Accepting the literary license of hyperbole, I can read past it and take in > something of what (I think) is intended. Among the high tech crowd (present > company specifically included), the tendency toward "mega-giga-hyper" is > annoying sometimes, but in the "new age" spirituality crowd, there is a > similar "adjective inflation" that tends to be off-putting. > > I hope this is not landing on you as criticism in the negative sense, as I > myself "have a style" that sure grates (or confounds) many here. Pots and > Kettles as it were. Instead I'm seeking a little more context so that these > things might not be so "jangly" to my neurochemistry. It seems that we have > others here who might be inclined to weigh in on the topic, whether it be > about language and neuroscience or about nonlinear vs linear or > self-similarity about many worlds interpretations of QM. These *are* the > topics that seem to inhabit the boundary between the spiritual mystics and > the most modern of physics concepts. This *is* what we need a Pidgen > language to talk about... > > - Steve > > > Hi Steve Smith and fellow friams, > > Is the Mandelbrot Set linear? > > I like it as a simple mathematical system, just a simple iteration on > the real line continuum, similar to the infinite iterations for e or > pi -- as you may have heard that it is an infinitely long and crooked > single "line", without any "enclosed areas" -- > > moreover, it contains infinitely many complete replicas of itself, > smaller and smaller forever, with exactly the same "amount of > infinity" each, just as does any size segment of the ordinary simple > real line continuum... > > these mathematical models offer helpful metaphors for the status of > our universe bubble, a quantum vacuum fluctuation 13,700 million years > ago in a source thing with 10 dimensions of space and one of time, > that adds up to total zero at every moment, all potential and kinetic > energy, momentum, angular momentum, positive and negative charge, and > so on for many such items in abstract geometries -- just as the waves > on a vast flat pond also all add up to zero no matter how long and > complex the forever evolving geometric patterns with a frictionless > fluid -- > > so, I offer this as a modern metaphor: > > each of us is uniquely all of single entire unified creative open > fractal hyperinfinity... > > I need also an adjective for: "every "point" and "instant" are in > completely intimate contact with every other, without any "travel" > delays" -- as an analogy, pink and heavy and happy and vanilla and > five and loud coexist and cocreate in "awareness" without any actual > separation -- > > no possibility of defining a metric in awareness for awareness that > would define a measurable space or time location label -- > > so, as a corrolary, no size or location can be ascribed to awareness, > "this very instant of experience" -- > > it's definitely your mind I'm deconstructing this moment... > > so, awareness, the home of all speculation, is itself immune to speculation > -- > > it's definitely your mind that I'm exalting this moment... > > if you feel strange, focus awareness on the actual varying sensations > that comprise "feeling strange" -- they too are transient flickerings > within awareness... > > good strategy to choose evolving without limit into new territories, > while simply asking for help... > > !!! within the fellowship of service, Rich > > > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rich - > > Thanks for the well-articulated response which was (mostly) responsive to my > observations. At the very least, your much more linear/lucid narrative here > gives me hope that I've not stumbled into a new branch of the Moonies or > Scientologists. > > I've had in-person conversations with you in the past (at the Agua Fria > Campus of SFX) and know that you do not always sound like Coleridge on > 'shrooms. It is nice to get a hit of that (non-Coleridge) again online. > > However, the following is *most* responsive to what I was asking: > > > -- the writings are designed artfully to guide > more innocent minds down the primrose path beyond the unrecognized, > limited horizons of their experience to date -- > > this really does remind me of the rhetoric used by my druggie acquaintances > in middle school when trying to talk others into dropping acid. If they > had been less creepy kids (with creepier pushers in their shadows) I might > have taken them up on it, but there was nothing about their affect that made > me feel like I was going to have a "nice trip" in their hands. > > I'm sure there are some (many?) here who dipped their sticks into the > psychadelic drug culture and maybe even have some strong > opinions/experiences from that (probably most are not willing to share those > in an open forum), but despite my interest in altered states, there is > something about this that seems inherently untrustworthy... kinda like Doug > (and others) singing the siren song of LINUX <grin>, promising infinite > enlightenment just by making the "right" choice at bootloader time! > > Thanks for the (linear) engagement here. I was hoping you would offer the > whole group a little more linearity to leaven the more common non-linearity > we see of you. But I'll leave that to you... I don't think I'm the only > one who gets a little weirded by this stuff. > > - Steve > > > Hi Steve Smith, > > I enjoyed your spirited, unspiritual missive of misgivings -- Fred > Davis is talking to an ingroup culture called "nonduality" -- there's > a saying in Zen: > > two thieves who meet each other at night in a rich neighborhood > recognize each other instantly... > > this "thiefistic" recognition is not necessarily theistic... > > It refers to what Dr. John C. Lilly, or maybe it was Dr. Russel Targ, > calls, "state specific communication", which refers to the sharings > between people who are, often deliberately, in a somewhat similar > altered, hopefully "expanded" states of awareness, comparable to the > way jazz musicians often get stoned and improvise music together for > hours at high speed in jam sessions -- these sharings may not be at > all understandable by observers or participants who are not in similar > states at that time -- the writings are designed artfully to guide > more innocent minds down the primrose path beyond the unrecognized, > limited horizons of their experience to date -- now, this particular > piece is superb, which is why I sent it on to Friam, and so is the > piece by Jerry Katz, the link at the end -- well, I've been in the > priceless jewel donation charity since age 23 in 1965, when I read > Aldous Huxley's last novel "Island" -- he died of throat cancer the > day John Kennedy died -- so that work has plenty of same kind of > crafty suggestions, enthusiastic exhortations, and plain good advice > to wrap your mind around. Call me up some evening in Imperial Beach, > CA, 10 miles south of San Diego, as I can show you quickly how easy it > is to find new levels of awareness in your own mind with gentle > playful conversation 619-623-3468 > or ask me anything via email ... puzzled, intrigued, curious? > > within the fellowship of service, Rich > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rich - > > I just read through this post/article (twice as "instructed" by the content) > and have to say I mostly feel like I've just been visited by a born again > Christian who snuck through my front door trying to jack me up on Jesus, or > a Carny-Con trying to get me to play his three-card-monty, or Jim Jones > offering me Koolaid! > > The style of writing is at least mildly disturbing... if it doesn't have > exactly the cadence, alliteration and general shape of that of a cult leader > or a con man or a Jesus-Junky, I still feel like I'm being Snake-Charmed, > Stage-Hypnotized, or NLP'd (whatever that would look like). > > I'm curious if you recognize this feature in this particular piece of > writing and/or some of the other things you send us? Do *you* find it at > all disturbing? > > It doesn't really fit into the "normal" styles of discourse such as > Exposition, Argument, Description or even Narration. It is sort of a "come > to Jesus" lead-through, or Coleridge-esque poetry? The closest description > I can find is "Proselytization" or "Faith Healing"... > > I'm not strongly compelled either way on your usual topics of Russo Fusion, > Younger Dryas Cosmic Events, Methylated Spirits (I mean Asparatame), etc... > but this particular article was more boldly and obviously some kind of > proselytizing message... not unlike the Jesus Junkies who strongly suggest > that as soon as you "accept JaiyZuss into your Harrt!" you will suddenly be > happy, free of all worries, in the warm embrace of the creator, the spirit, > the saviour, etc. > > I suspect that Eric (Smith and others) can speak more directly to what I'm > interpreting as "phonolinguistic" features. But I'm curious what you feel > or think about this issue of "style"? > > - Steve > > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
