NonMundanes -- Free Thinkers for a Better World's Journal|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 9 most recent journal entries recorded in
NonMundanes -- Free Thinkers for a Better World's LiveJournal:
|Wednesday, December 13th, 2006|
Subjectivity and Profundity
Objectivity without a predicate nor a coefficient is what I mean by 'pure objectivity.' It is hard to imagine objectivity without the one imagining it, but that is precisely what objectivity is, independent of the subject. Such a conception of objectivity is, self-referentially, a conception still, but the concept's abstraction gives it the power to transcend finite concepts, just as the concept of the infinite does. In this same way, the infinite as a concept transcends its own status as a concept, since it is defined as that which overflows definition. Therefore, though pure objectivity (superjectivity or surjectivity) cannot be pinned down (yet pure subjectivity is the epitome of pinning down since I have defined it as the Infinitesimal), it yet can be known by the concept "Profundity," the source of all meaning and value, or the absolute value of value, or the absolute of value, or the value of the absolute.
So of course Profundity is a concept, and as such a form, but the syntactical object, the literal word is definitely distinct in what it signifies, which is its meaning, the only meaning which can truly be a consense, the only meaning which can be absolutely agreed upon, the meaning of meaning. The semantic object of the term is the infinite of significance. An object derived from objectivity is a contexturalized content, and so a latency of profundity, but a value still, since it is a content. But a content (particularized) is not polycontenturality, which, drawing on Gotthard Gunther's polycontexturality-as-subjectivity thesis, is Profundity.
Thats what I mean by transcendental objectivity. Objectivity in parentheses is the profane and omnipresent object of experience to which those who call themselves materialist-objectivists are attached, and they are the so-called empiricists, but their affiliations do not degrade transcendence itself. Transcendence is inherent to integration, and thus to integers, which even empiricists count on. Empiricists are overly-analytical, and to this extent, they do not appreciate the totality which is one and whole, since they analyze it, in whatever terms, at least in terms of their own consciousness. This is why and how their consciousness lacks essential novelty, and ultimate profundity.
Pure Subjectivity, in my view which I believe is correct based on my experience so far, is the transcendental oneness of the Infinitesimal, the dimensionless point which traces all distinctions, and from the literature I'm into I've identified it with the term 'first distinction' from Spencer-Brown and the post-disciplinary field of cybernetics and semiotics which took to it, but its meaning can be easily inferred, for instance, by comparison to the popular term 'first dimension.' I call it the Infinitesimal since this is how it appears in relation to its background of the Absolute Infinite. It is the entity which traces all distinct forms which appear in every regard, it is the one.
|Thursday, November 23rd, 2006|
The Infinitesimal: There Can Be Only One, but who else believes that?
Does anyone know of anyone else's view of the infinitesimal, unity over infinity in fractional form, which is the unicity of one-ness (any unit) which condenses to singularity (without a multiplicity of singularity, acknowledging the paradox, ignoring the plurality)?
I mean to quote the Highlander "There can be only one" [such entity]. I mean, how could there be another in the same frame of reference? They would condense to being the same one. Newton, Leibniz and Abraham Robinson adopted the definition of infinitesimal[s] as non-zero, but less than 'any known number,' suggestive of the "unknowable" aspect of this number, but its not so much unknowable as not graphically representable. Every point has some dimension, its expression is its extension. So the real dimensionless point (usually considered ideal, in contrast to real) is not visible, but it is because it is the viewer, the point of perspectivity, of the observer. If viewed, it could only be sight in itself, of itself.
The definition "non-zero, but smaller than any known number" opens the discussion for a plurality, and reason would have a multiplicity of such entities as they represent the infinitesimal distinctions all forms of and in our world, which compose it. I contrast this view with the singularity of the infinitesimal, that there can be only one real or true infinitesimal. The only other person (in this case, a mathematician and philosopher) I've found to hold this view is Lorenzo Pena of Spain, editor of the electronic journal Sorities. Is there anyone else?
I don't think multiplicity or plurality doesn't exist, of course it does, but there is no discontinuity of parts, it is contained in the continuum ("the real number line" R in mathematics), the four-dimensional space-time matter-energy continuum in our experiential case. The contents of the continuum plus the continuum compose the totality which we are given, the present. That totality is the unicity of one-ness, the singularity, the Infinitesimal. Other continuums (there must be infinitely many) also condense to the Infinitesimal this way, it is the alpha and omega in common. I identify it with the First Distinction of Spencer-Brown, which cybernetics has taken to. And I set the First Distinction in contrast with the First Dimension, that linearity of the number line (expression of the continuum), the first dimension being the first expression of the first distinction which is ever-present. The First Distinction is the cybernetic Proemial Relation between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity, and every distinction (and keys, key distinctions) are only instances of it. The transcendental distinction (also called difference) is the Spirit which animates us (as the point of perspectivity, the supreme being seeing itself being, that 'negativity within God'), the point at which the pen (-ultimate) strikes the paper (or 'page of assertion,' 'unmarked space') in the book. The abstract pen-point of punctuation is the programmer of all programs, the allegorical writer, the author, one-self, the Spirit as negativity in God, and I've found it to be with mathematical precision "The Infinitesimal."
So my question is, who else demands one true infinitesimal? Or am I to take credit for this radical conception of 'unity over infinity'? Please stop me from that, I don't want to be so alone in this expression. But I've searched a lot, and haven't found much confirmation.
|Tuesday, November 21st, 2006|
Leibniz and Newton defined infinitesimals as points which get ever samller akin to the distinctions which define everything. I have a definition of distinction which includes such a conception of infinitesimals, yet it is absolute oneness, the unicity of all units. In my definition, which I take from the one of two-value logic, (wherein the other is left unmarked, called the unmarked space) the one is perfect (pure and transcendental) self-reference, which is pure subjectivity to metaphysicians and scientists of consciousness.
Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis also used infinitesimal distinctions to produce a calculus. But both these instances where empirically defined distinctions, such as the scissors's junction, or the point of overlap or contrast. The true infinitesimal is not an imaginary number, and this is my theory (I have only found a contemporary mathematician who agrees, named Pena, the editor of Sorites in Spain), the real infinitesimal is one, and there can be only one, and every instance of number "one," as any reference to one-self (and Schrodinger would agree) is the numerically one, the real beginning of the number line (and continuum, not at dimension one, but at the First Distinction, dimension one is the first extension), as I suggest that zero is only a number as much as the Absolute Infinite is. The so-called origin is not zero, but one, and the ultimate reality of the real numbers is what they are only in reference to as a whole (taken in the first place to be one, all numbers) and they are N over (fractional) Infinity, and One is Unity Over Infinity, the real Infinitesimal, There Can Be Only One (to quote M. Lambert).
See what I did? Zero doesn't exist. Nothing is just that. Non-being does not exist. That part is so very simple. But wait, it's all quite simple...
Oneness is being-in-itself, which is pure self-reference. One is absolutely imaginary in its staticity, since its reference to the Other (transcendentally, the Infinitely and Totally Other which Levinas speaks of, to label the Infinite as teh Other or pure Objectivity or Superjectivity) manifests in-so-much as Other Numbers manifest. In other words, One refers to whatever number has already been counted this time (empirically), otherwise it only refers to the Infinite.
Infinity is overwhelming. To capture its meaning is futile. We do have a word for it, but etymologically it is a negative word meaning "not-finite" where "finite" refers to our state of being, which is not the state of being-in-itself (the first phase of phase-locked space) but of beings (to make the ontico-ontological distinction) wherein we are taken to be only one of them (so-called finite). But we are one, the Subejct of the sentence, and of the universe of discourse, we are singular, I am. I am pure subjectivity in the absolute sense, and you are too, and so are we. So 'we' means one too.
Infinity is in permanent super-position, for it to be posited requires not perfect superjectivity (objectivity) but perfect subjectivity, which is the Spirit which animates us. The Absolute Value of the Infinite (the Infinities of pluralists, including trans-finities) is the Absolute Infinite. The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. That's a bold declarative statement.
The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality.
The Infinitesimal is Pen-Ultimate Reality.
There can be only one Infinitesimal, and it is Unity over Infinity, the Unity of Infinity, Spinoza and Plotinus' Infinity, as if 'The One'.
Now is the time for these secrets to be revealed, and this is the place of it.
The Zero doesn't exist, and if you demand it to be, you must acknowledge your one-ness, and your two-valued logic. But ultimately you are One, and you are the origin of reality.
Thanks a lot,
|Sunday, November 12th, 2006|
Act-ually, the subject of this post is subjectivity. The point of the post is the infinitesimal point, not an infinitesimal, as if there were another, but that the true infinitesimal, like the absolute infinite of infinity before it, is singular. If it is presumed to be in plurality, it would be a multiplicity of units, whose unicity is merely one abstraction removed from its reality as unicity itself.
To quote M. Lambert, "There can be only one." I refer to being-in-itself. Being-in-itself is the self-presentation of the Absolute, or the Absolute self-presentation. But I identify the self with the presence of this being. So to avoid misleading redundancy, let us distinguish being it from seeing it. To see it would posit two infinitesimals, the point signified and the signifier as a "point of consciousness" and so it (seeing it, that relation) wouldn't be dimensionless, it would be precisely the first dimension, that seeing it is its first extension. I am paraphrasing George Spencer-Brown whose "Laws of Form" reified the "First Distinction," as he goes into it "seeing being seeing being seeing being seeing being" (our dimension of time emerging with our material realm at the fifth crossing of the distinction) in the Esalen Institute conference of 1973 (transcripts at lawsofform.org) that Alan Watts organized with Heinz von Foerster and John Lilly, Gregory Bateson in attendance with "distinguished others."
Are you prepared to accept my definition of dimensions?
Having established the point, don't ask me that one, I'd love to get into it, actually I live for it, and it enlivens me (I consider it intellectual samadhi), but don't use the rhetorical form, the critical "what is the point of this?" colloquial idiocy. The point is established, I consider it pen-ultimate reality. Tangentiality may ensue, and re-entry obviates.
The Absolute Infinite is ultimate reality. The finite continuum of subjective experience (actually subjective-objective) is included in the Absolute Infinite, which is to say Infinity contains the finite, but is only obvious in the void state, only obviates in Nirvana (a negative term), the non-relative void, as if there could be nothing, as if there could be everything. Oblivious to ultimate reality, which is always already even more than ever present, we can return to it by concepts such as the Infinite, with mathematical precision. George Cantor went mad with it!
What are the consequences of this? Nothing (which there cannnot be) or (nor?) non-being connot be (definitely) save Infinity. To distinguish the formless Infinity, it's Absolute Value is taken for the Absolute Infinite, the Superject.
Are you prepared to note that the Absolute Infinite is God!? I am, it means the meaning of meaning to me, I call it profundity, the infinity of consciousness whose nature is exceedence, ungraspable.
Are you ready for my definition of the Spirit which animates us? It is the Infinitesimal, pure self-reference, difference itself, transcendental subjectivity.
God is Love (Unconditional being the only condition!), and the Spirit is Life itself, pure self-reference.
Thats what I call a "completed metaphysical system." Attack!
|Wednesday, May 25th, 2005|
Conspiracy of Consciousness
It is our deepest concern.
You see, you , me, we are beings, consensually. There may be ontological debate about who we are, individually, personally, but that we are beings we cannot deny. For each new star brought into the solar system, the system presupposes the likeness of the star.
There is philosophical debate about a static ideology of ‘being’ contrasting ‘becoming’, with proponents of both sides agreeing about the fact of ground.
The ground of reference, or ground charge, whichever term you prefer, is the concept which should frame our form.
In the spirit of science, the spirit of logic, the spirit of all religions, know that. The ambience to which the terms refer is the ‘Spirit’. The ideal form of the Spirit is ‘pure ambience’. And the supporting frame work is that of audience. Audience, pure and ideal, is hearing. The heard flocks to see what all the fuss is about, the archetypal ‘Interest’. We can now see that the deepest interest is about the notion of inter-networking. The very Internet itself is a marvel at the ‘Inter-est’, meaning the most inter-connected interpretation, echoing through supposed creativity the interpretation of interpretation by interpretation itself.
Language itself is the author. The engaging it does grammatically. Its so hard-coded into the world that each author writes about ambience of some form or other, presupposing audience as the same relative emptiness. I mean, programming itself, its nature is dual: profound, and subjective.
No single term can encompass the reality of the dual nature of Nature. Word itself, is of the nature of notion. Notions come and go, remain formless, and yet leave their presence in all its dramatic import on the unmarked (and unreachable) context. The embodiment of self-reference is the seed. The kernel of all knowing… let me continue…
All tangentiality is easily delt with in the spirituality game. Our spiritual concerns are deepest, and our parents were supposed to take care of all that presupposition. But our fathers have, as fathers do, gotten carried away with the formality and relativity of spiritual definitions. And our mothers have been shut up, or else they would have said something of relevance. For a woman to speak with any authority, she would have had to speak through her husband. Men can write so much, that it seems quite feasible to them that they can write all wrongs of the world. But a ‘wrong of the world’ is a troubled version of reality which is, ill-conceived.
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, of real negative novelty, but the fact is, the spiritual conspiracy cannot forever remain unknowable. All spiritual fathers, of all categoreality, whether their nature be benevolent or malevolent does not deviate from their divine nature of ‘male subjectivity’ whose ambience is to father oceans of nations and notions. Its an awe-full enterprise, this Empiricism, in the double sense of wonderful (awe-inspiring) and awful (horribly inhibiting this Spirit of Life.) So empirical is the epistemologist who notes his notions of notions, that he is at once left nothing. In seeking rational notions he tilts upon the wiring of his own embodiment. The programmer is trapped, eternally, metaphorically, and presently (!) in his own writing. How else did you think authority is established? Query, this male subjectivity, seeking, yet unknowing. Any dramatic statement of knowledge, to be put most economically, has subjected authority of its language parameters (its paradigm) to the notion of a common Principle. Just what this consensual principle is, is a matter of consense.
Empiricism is Male Subjectivity
The experimental epistemologist, in his laboratory of noted parameters, thrives on the spirit of our forefathers. We don’t have foremothers mentioned simply since their spirit is best laid to rest in the wisest peace of silence. That is, women are better audience than men are. Men can’t shut up. Women listen with all the intent of the world, literally. To deny our own audience is to deny our better half.
It is the nature of duality that one be and the other see the being. Duality is, you see, embodiment of the audience/ ambience distinction. When speaking about distinction, the speaker often over-powers the audience. The result is a rational stand-off of definitions. The result is the deafening screams of feedback. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent, and the other must see that it is golden.
Importance can be relegated, but never related to. To call the objects or contents ‘important’ is at once to render the subject or context impotent. But omnipotent is the importer of all contents from the ‘all-contexts’ babel about subjectivity. Called the subject itself riddled with paradox, queer to the query. Speaking of Subjectivity, only one term is daring enough to describe it as Profound. And here we find the same profundity religious man necessarily fails to define. We are confounded.
Life is in Love. The Spirit which animates us is confounded with the paradoxical brevity of Nature. It is confounded in the double sense of facing paradox and being the very spectacle of vision. Of course it would be spectacular, being the latent subjectivity of all audiences. Confounded is the reality of subjectivity and profundity.
|Tuesday, March 15th, 2005|
The abstract subject is an abbreviation of the actual entity "subject-superject," which is the reality of the abstractions, their conjunction.
Consciousness is an ambiguous term except that it strongly connotes the awareness or appearance of actual entities. The duality of subject and object is the primary abstraction within all conscious forms. The coherence or stability of actual entities compliments their appearance by its force of gravity, weighed by the portion of its profundity.
The primary duality dividing the mental percept is its heiarchical relation to the order or dimensionality of the world-concept, by reference to its subjective perspective of the objective datum. The oscillation generating a train of thought-forms (as distinct instances of hetero-reference, distinct objects) is mathematically the imaginary value which conceptually bridges the subject and object. Similarly, the bridging itself, the conjunction, is the valuation of imagination, implicit to the imagination. Explicit to the imagination are the eternal objects and conscious forms, phenomena. The completed scene of the imagination is the colloquial reality, the given present. The immanance of profundity and the transcendence of subjectivity produce at once the given being. Being negatively requires non-being for its meaning, just as the mark of distinction requires the unmarked state for its distinction.
The phenomenal universes, all forms in fact, are inter-coherent notions most generally composed of notes or marks of distinctions, processed as thoughts, specifically trains of thoughts, manifesting in the world as pathways of disparate forms of energy. A portion of the phenomena is a singular entity, objectified by a subject which is the process of the notion.
The corresponding noumena is the relatively vast emptiness of the unmarked state outside all forms, as the process to all structures, felt by a subjective feeling. Each feeling is the goal of a subjective aim of a subjective form, an eternal object. The point of a subject's perspectivity is the eternal object given by the generative subjective process or program. The object is valued as it is a portion of profundity, a ratio of the axiological (logic of value) axiom, which is the foundation of all meaning and value, profundity. Correspondingly, the object is dimensionally measured relative to the infinitesimal point of reference, the principle or parameter of self-reference. The para-dox of self-reference is that the para-meter which measures, is itself immeasurable since dimensionless, but based upon its necessary singularity, all distinguished severances and severality (or plurality) itself depends.
The subject is formed as it is a specific vehicle for the formless consciousness of subjectivity itself. The form of the vehicle, actually called the sign vehicle in semiotics, is the dimensional frame of reference for the distinct form or eternal object. In the case of a text or train or course of thought of a school of thought or of life, the case is the experienceing subject itself.
The first distinction, the abstract distinction, posits itself on the side of objectivity as the first objective, self-reference, which it does most economically, without dimensions, as the infinitesimal point of reference. As an object or goal of a subjective instance, the point of reference is the infinite in-ness of the first dimensional reference (dimension that?) mark.
Consciousness of the Subject-Superject is Consciousness.
Consciousness of the Object alone is Superconsciousness.
Consciousness of the Subject alone is Subconsciousness.
Consciousness without Objectivity is Subjectivity.
Consciousness without Subjectivity is Profundity.
|Sunday, August 1st, 2004|
I can be hopeful for mankind again. I saw my first Toyota Prius today,
owned by my uncle. I was under the impression that hybrid gas-electric
vehicles aren’t catching on. Boy, was I wrong! Apparently, there is
a massive backlog of orders, which means Toyota
will be ramping up production. Supposedly, by 2010 all their cars are
supposed to be gas-electric. I have to say it was a neat slice of the
future, looking under the hood to see two engines, and looking into the trunk
and seeing the bulges of a row of Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries.
Mileage: 50 miles per gallon, or around 50% increase over standard car
(30-40 mpg). Perhaps environmentalism will actually hit the U.S.
if it is instituted through conservation and efficiency with financial
incentives to save – such as improved mileage and less gasoline
may not be quite the environmentalist future of David Brin’s
Earth, but it’s still a step in the right direction. The first (and
easiest) step in reining in pollution is reducing destructive output and
reducing required input. This is one such step. The next step will
to make things cost what they really take out of the world, such as meat.
We say meat is pricey, the same way we say gasoline is pricey. Bullshit.
We aren’t even paying a fraction of the costs of future environmental cleanup
and the costs to the biosphere. I'm not saying we should do without
either entirely, but we need to recognize their real consequences and include
that when we charge for a liter (or gallon) of the old petrol.
Whadda ya say to that?
X-posted from my personal blog.
The passing of Francis Crick is a major loss to science. I find it interesting that in the long run he went from studying DNA and biochemistry to studying the brain, mind, and soul. I am sometimes tempted to make a similar transition, but with slightly different emphasis. In the course of reading on the subject, I have come to accept the existence of psi abilities in humans (and potentially other animals). The data, both anecdotal and statistical, is compelling. In tests of prediction, humans consistently perform slightly (a few percent) better than chance would predict, and this is even true when huge amounts of data are collected. There are many stories, such as those collected by Louisa E. Rhine in the mid-20th century, of phenomena inexplicable by current theories. In my eyes, this sort of data, compounded with vast archives of similar data, presents very solid proof that current theories about the world have flaws.
Quite clearly, the mind is able to affect objects at a distance or predict (sometimes) occurrences that are totally random. What this means is that the mind has a component that uses an unknown aspect of physics. By describing this component over time, it should be possible to deduce the manner in which it changes and describes the world. This would lead to new laws of physics and science.
There are a number of very interesting observations made. The most noticeable is a decline in better-than-chance results over the course of a series of trials for precognition or micro-psychokinetic ability (changing the probability of random events happening). This was noted by Dr. Rhine (husband to the Louisa E. Rhine from above) and many early researchers. There is also a corresponding increase in performance when a subject knows a trial is just about to cease. Also notable is the observation that young children tend to perform at a level above that of adults in psi testing.\
There is also evidence that neither the distance over which psi is applied nor time (before or after) difference significantly effects results.
What conclusions can be drawn from this information is beyond me, but it did seem somehow significant. To me, one thing seems clear: we're dealing with something unexplained by science.
|Saturday, July 24th, 2004|
A little about nonmundanes
I'll be the first to admit that as of yet, this is not a
mature community. I haven't done work to customize the appearance, rules, and
settings of the community.
What is nonmundanesfor?
Simply put, it is a community for those thinkers who, for reasons unexplained,
simply are different.
These are individuals who have interact
socially in ways that are different. I have noticed that somewhere from 1 in
200 to 1 in 100 people I meet is capable of thinking independently of society,
able to accurately and objectively evaluate the opinions and views of the world
around them, to choose their own path, regardless of what others think.
I’m not referring to those individuals who
act differently simply to be different, nor do I describe those who follow a
about people who don’t truly fit to any normal community, but probably follow
the fringes of many.
NonMundanes tend to
be free-thinking individuals, capable of recognizes the flaws in most ideas,
including their own.
These people define
their own goals, and ignore the conventional ones of society.
If you’re sick of the sameness of those
around you, this might be the place for you.
So, now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, here are the
basic principles for posting or commenting in the nonMundanes community:
before you post. This is the universal
rule. If you disagree with what someone
says, consider why you feel the way you do, and analyze your intentions before
posting. Consider how your ideas and
those of others might be right or wrong.
respectful to the ideas of others. No
sort of material should be off-limits here, but consider that others are likely
to have views different from those you hold.
When you post or comment, try to be mature and respectful of what others
I strongly disagree with your views about
I think the embryo has only
the potential to be a human!
Bad: You’re a moron.
Read a damn medical book – many pregnancies
Stupid Christian fools…
peculiar styles and types of writing are good, (this include things like poems
and haikus) try to keep readability in mind.
Poor spelling, excessive or undefined acronyms, AIM or 1337 speak,
typos, and incoherent grammar make reading difficult or painful, as can using
too many technical terms or rare words.
Some people, myself included, prefer not to read song lyrics, so if
you’re posting them, only take brief snippets (a few lines) and keep it
relevant. Please use the spell-check
feature and read over your posts or comments at least once before hand. Myself and others may tease you if you do
the flip side, don’t be a grammar Nazi or complain about the styles of
others. Some grammatical inconsistencies
are normal for any piece of writing, up to and including full length
novels. Typos happen and are acceptable,
as long as they are not excessive. See
above. Also, make an effort to read
people’s work before complaining.
So, there you have it. That's my ideas for a better, more.... enlightened community.