Lynnclaire, we get together for a café session every Tuesday evening (or at least we have been for quite a while and plan to do so for a future while, it seems) at the same time (1 pm MT … +8 for those of us in Europe). This evening (in ~ 1.5 hrs) we are going to be chatting about all the loose ends that have frayed out over the past many conversations. As John Davis likes to put it, we’ve been doing a lot of “heavy (cognitive) lifting” through the past several cafe sessions, and it’s time to shake and walk off some of the cramps, I’d say, hence the lack of specific topic this evening. But, be that as it may, everybody is always welcome.
(As an aside: unlike most people, I don’t have a(n un)“natural” or school-induced math/geometry phobia, but it takes me a long time to get my head wrapped around some things. (Well, these days, at my age, most things.) Nevertheless, I have been plodding (consciously chosen word) on through The Mereon Matrix. Much of what I read seems to “make sense”, but I’m not sure what it’s telling me, if you know what I mean, so I can assure you that the moment my head clears enough to formulate a question or two, I’ll be getting back to you.)
For my tired ol’ eyes the two smaller images are pretty blurry for me, even with my glasses. I tried scaling up the page size, but then the resolution becomes such that they’re blurred too. Any chance of rescaling them? (Doesn’t have to be today, but I’m interested.)
Ed, thank you so much for your willingness to think. I suspect you will enjoy ThetaMark when we release it. EEG and EKG and biofeedback starts next week. It disconnects the language center and puts you smack dab in the middle of your Youniverse where the Universe is free to talk back I’m meeting friends tonight so will be unable to watch you shake off the dust and stretch, but do enjoy! As for what mereon has shown me? We know we’re made of stardust. Men don’t come from Mars and women from Venus, but certainly we’re all from different stars that may be part of a constellation. How that stardust forms our stuff and informs who we are is what this is about. Our Unity —living in our skin— requires complexity, but the diversity of our inner realities – body, heart, brain, intuition, temporal awareness, and spirit— is what makes us unique. What we take in effects every reality and its output is global. How it goes in, through and comes out is riding the torus. What it all means… we can know why and how we and everyone and everything matters, and understand that what we day and do counts. Blessings to all!
This morning I had a thought that I think might have been driving some of my thinking in our chat last night. It has to do with the idea of “same” or “similar”.
In German, you can say, “Das ist das Selbe, aber nicht das Gleiche.” The literal translation is roughly "That is the same (in the sense of indistinguishable from one another), but it’s not the same (in the sense of precisely the same thing in both instances). This is one of those instances where, linguistically, one language has sliced the reality pie perhaps a bit more precisely than the other. The English is, as is quite often the case, more ambiguous.
What is more, in my stumbling and scratching around with the knot stuff, I was trying to get a better handle on the notion of x-fold symmetry. Tetrahedra have 3-fold and 4-fold symmetry, but not 5-fold symmetry; the dodecahedron as 3-fold and 5-fold symmetry, but not 4-fold. Mathematically, however, having the same symmetry (in this case 3-fold symmetry) makes the forms “equivalent” (das Selbe, the same), though to look at them they are obviously not “das Gleiche” (in the sense of the same thing; whereby the phrase “ist gleich” is what is used in an equation (Gleichung) for “equals”)). My point is, this (granted, mathematical) notion of equivalence takes “similarity” to a different degree of intensity (somehow). Or, we know that two intersecting tetrahedra “define” a cube; that is, the locations of the visible vertices maps out a cube. It’s like the cube is “there”, but it isn’t. That reminds of Lynnclaire’s description of the rainbow, which is there but isn’t really a thing.
It was a hard thing to undo this knot.
The rainbow shines, but only in the thought
Of him that looks. Yet not in that alone,
For who makes rainbows by invention?
And many standing round a waterfall
See one bow each, yet not the same to all,
But each a hand’s breadth further than the next.
The sun on falling waters writes the text
Which yet is in the eye or in the thought.
It was a hard thing to undo this knot
Gerard Manley Hopkins
“On the fourth day of that journey, they came to a place where they could look down from above on a straight column of light that stretched over the whole of heaven and earth, more like a rainbow than anything else, but brighter and more pure.” -Plato, The Republic, Book X
Was Plato a post-modern trickster? According to Jason Jorjani, the theory of eternal forms is a deliberate fabrication, a theatrical trick, that Plato invented, to break free from cruel Gods of the Homeric epic. It would appear that Plato is in between the magical/mythical and the emerging rational. I believe Jason Jorjani is engaging in a comparative study as he makes his case, even calling the NDE account which I quoted from the Republic, as similar to the Buddhist accounts of the bardo realms. So with all of these overlapping alternate histories, which Plato exploited, and reports of near death visions, such as we have heard from Lynnclaire, how are going to re-model our social/cultural worlds? I believe there is a possibility that a post-rational, planetary, future(s) movement can arise from the paradoxical knots of our current post-modern Trickster figures. Meta-modeling is, as we demonstrate in this episode, a very important skill to develop, in a world manipulated by the neo-liberal, trans-human, spin-meisters.
Or was it just an honest attempt to verbalize and give form to his thoughts and experiences? I’m always highly skeptical when motives get ascribed to possible intentions after 2500 years. (Hell, I’m skeptical about such things after 2500 minutes.) For the Rational consciousness, such depictions can be nothing other than lies, and didn’t the postmodernists – the purists, of course – try to tell us that reality is a mere fiction as well? But I agree, John, we need new skills, too.
I’m still trying to acclimate to this site & group. Does this email only go to the @ccafe, or to everyone at IC?
Anyway, w/r/t (with regard to) our last Cafe session/conversation/discussion regarding my aversion to the word “resonate”, which connotes a connection to music. Said another way, i.e. (in other words): strikes a chord, rings a bell, etc. and so on. Why that? … Maybe a more accurate description of the word, “resonate", as popularly used, would be: confirming to me what I thought to be true, or Confirmation Bias?
And that then leads to this question: Just because “everyone”, i.e. “the authority”, has for centuries said such & such is true - does that give it credence/veracity? In Psychology, “we”, have a “principle” called “operational definition” - which means: What does it look like? (in real life).
The word ‘resonate’ is a linguistic/semantic/cultural “hook” to make a connection between individuals/groups to imply ( a persuasive suggestion) a bond, where in fact, none may exist. In other words - a linguistic/semantic trap that seduces the “listener” (the other) to submit to what the speaker/authority/salesperson is saying. Eg (example): If I say to you, “Listen to me”, what I’m really saying is, “submit to me”. If I say, “You don’t understand”, what I’m really saying is, “You don’t agree with me”. See, the distinction?
We (who study human/animal behavior and the mind) are few. So, how do you know the motivation of the other, or yourself, for that matter? Does it even matter? What matters? Answer: the pleasure/pain axis? the self/other axis? the action/passive axis? … or what? My desire or yours? Who decides? … God? whose god?
If you post in a thread or respond to a post in a thread, it only goes to that thread (i.e., conversation: here, the one related to our CCafé session on 5/1). But, anyone on the site can come to this thread and read what has been posted in that thread.
It can connote a connection to music. It is generally used in auditory-related contexts, but it need not necessarily be “musical”.
I am sure there are instances when that is the case, but it would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine if that is in fact the best description of what is happening. When I use the word “resonate”, I intend it to me that what was said affects me more deeply/profoundly/intensely/seriously than just what I may want to hear (i.e., confirmation bias). In the bias case, I might say “yeah, that sounds right”, but that’s just how I might try to express the difference in effect.
Again, I would say can be a hook, but need not be a hook. When I say, “Listen to me”, I mean “I would appreciate if you would focus your attention on what I am saying.” If I say “You don’t understand”, I mean “I’m not getting feedback from you that you are comprehending and following what I am saying” … generally. I mean, say any of those sentences in a particular other tone of voice and you can have a wide array of “meanings” for those same words.
As I noted in another post, I’m very skeptical of asserting that I have the slightest clue what is motivating another when they speak. I can guess, I can imply, I can deduce from what I’m perceiving as relevant clues, but I don’t ever really know. I can only take what is being said, combine it with how it is being said, assess it in light of what I’ve heard in other situations ( both with the speaker and other human beings) and then hypothesize what the actual intent might be. Further experiential data (that is, empirical data) can reinforce that hypothesis or induce me to alter it in light of the new data I have taken in.
This is an excellent question. I say, based on my background and experience, supported and augmented by my beliefs and view-of-reality, and assessed against a background of all of the above (that is, similar situations and experiences over time) that yes, it matters. That conclusion is in that moment only relevant to me. I’m one of those naive individuals who believes that when an Other speaks to me, I should attend to what they are saying and consider my response in light of what I believe, know and believe to know in relation to the intensity of my relationship to that other. In other words, I take what some people say more seriously, and more to heart, if you will, than what others may say, whereby any of that can change at any time based on new input.
Only I can decide what matters, as far as I am concerned. G-d – whatever that may be conceived to be – has much better things to do than arbitrate my petty, personal, potential interactions. As far as I’m concerned, that has to be my job. I may not always do it well, but it’s mine. On the other hand, I’m not bucking for a promotion either.
I think “resonance” has to do with how something feels, prelinguistically.
We can feel another person’s energy (or quality of presence, or whatever we might call it) and then hypothesize about their reasons, motivations, etc. — aka ‘theory of mind.’ But the feels we get, I believe, are the primary phenomenon, and the words we ascribe to our feelings (based on our understanding of our own language) will resonate or clash, more or less, with what we feel.
This is how we know when something said is “truthful” (whether or not it’s factually true): the words and feelings sync up. The communication feels right. The trick is that we are not empty vessels or blank slates, but feel phenomena with our own ‘feelers’ that emanate their vibrational qualities, which are experienced by others and feed into what we experience of them. So there are multiple feeling-feedback loops and no perception is objectively pure. We are always confirming some bias.
A critical or self-critical perspective feels its own feelings and questions (or senses) where those feelings have come from, where they are going, and what they might be about. This is not to say that feelings are necessarily about anything in particular. Feelings are just like the weather: chaordic formations in constant motion. Nonetheless, we can become better attuned to local weather patterns, as well as the broader cultural climate (“Zeitgeist”). This is how we comes to some clarity on what others might be feeling—as cultural forecasters, we can feel a cold front coming on, or a heat wave, an ocean swell, squalls or dust devils, some numinous darkness or enlightenment…we resonate, or not. As climate changers, we can influence our own weather. We can alter the atmosphere. You feel me?
I suppose that would depend upon what you want to have happen. I imagine you could, Mark, start with your local Goddess. I think you call her Defiance. You talk to her, you said, but she doesn’t talk back. Interesting.
I have my local gods and goddesses, too. Right now I am enjoying the tree in the backyard of my old tenement building as it starts to bloom lavender flowers and sprout a few green shoots. I saw one bumble bee circulating around the lavender flowers and counted four morning doves and one bright red cardinal zoomed past my window. I sit out on the firescape in the mornings with a cup of coffee, in the evenings with a glass of wine. I consider this sacred time, as I let go of boundaries and expand, get lost in the growing tree, the insects and birds, and the big sky. As I sit on the firescape attached to the crooked rows of tenements that surround the graceful tree, I can hear the sounds of New York City traffic, alarms going off, planes overhead. I turn my distracted attention towards this tiny stressed community of highly significant others in the courtyard. This is my local convocation of Earth energies.
Resonate? It’s like the energy vibrating inside a hollow bell. It is quite pleasant sensation. Like the bubbling sensation of soda pop as foot that has fallen asleep, starts to wake up.
I share, in a similar way, a vibrating interior space with these ancient beings. I consider these creatures vital to my sense of meaningfulness, and I do not find anything comparable produced by the flat screen and the World Wide Web. I find the happenings on the World Wide Web less real than what is happening with my local gods and goddesses. I like to let the Slow Mind take over. Leaky margins of the mind in motion.
I consider the tree springing back into action after a long winter as a sign that the local gods and goddesses have not abandoned us. I had a few days when I feared that the tree had died. I grieved over that possibility. I have seen trees die and get cut down. My local tree means a lot to me. I prayed that it would return. And it did.
We have, it appears, perforated boundaries, as they enter me somehow with their mysterious presences, they know me, too, at the periphery of their own theatrically charged homecomings.
Many of Plato’s observations derive from the accounts of others. The sources are mixed and he never talks about his own experiences directly. He is more the fly on wall, with few if any self reflections. His dialogues seem to parody others as well as create heroic figures like Socrates. Is Plato a totally reliable narrator? I am sure he is not, he had an agenda.
The slave girls who played their flutes at the drunken orgies he recounts probably had their versions of reality too. It is said that on his death bed he actually corrected the tempo of the enslaved flute girl’s performance. I am interested as was Karl Popper and logician Graham Priest in alternate readings, multiple descriptions. I dont say I agree with everything Jorjani writes but he is offering a well grounded theory that is worth taking a look at. He comes out of a new kind of tradition, looking at Iranian cultural impact on the West. He has a Libertarian Alt-Right orientation, which I find troubling, but I am also open to new influences.
I suspect that Plato was much more into the occult than the official readings of him acknowledge. He draws upon the mystery schools he was acquainted with. There were many cults and secret societies, then and now. After all we are all just footnotes to Plato!
Thank you, Ed. You’ve summarized (I think), very well the complexities of interpersonal communication; & why and how it is so difficult in today’s world, but then it’s always been tough - risky. Do you think, in the aggregate, we (humans) have gotten better at it?
Indeed, I do. Well said; but then I’ve had the pleasure of your presence in person, face-to-face as well as in a small group settings. So my question to you is: How does what you’re describing (the old hippie “vibe”) trans(cend) to a/this online environment? W/r/t: “A critical or self-critical perspective feels” is where the help of a well_trained professional can be of real value.
“As climate changers, we can influence our own weather.” Transference and countertransference_emphasized text happens not only in the therapeutic setting, but also in day-to-day life. Or, The Law of Attraction. Or, in the language of Psychology (Timothy Leary, yes, that guy, before he started his experimental path) wrote about how we “pull” certain behaviors from others. But now? It seems like one has to check their phone first, see what the consensus is (said only slightly in jest), and then “groupthink” is amplified (another borrow from music). Thanks, Marco.
As is so (too?) often the case, yes and no and perhaps.
In my personal(ly defined) aggregate, a definite “yes”. This platform is evidence of this and I (and my family) certain try to do what we can in this regard. Yes, we get loud and hectic and all the rest, but at the end of the day, we’re all more or less poled in the same direction.
In the global aggregate, I’m not so sure; it looks like a “no” to me. The levels of violence, war, level of weapons sales, confrontations of fundamentalist religions (including neoliberal capitalism) are not indicative to me of getting better at anything that remotely resembles dialoge.
In the planetary aggregate, I am very hopeful. Once you get even a little beneath the global surface, there is, to my mind, an increasing number of individuals and groups who are looking seriously for serious alternatives to the global trends.
To all, but especially @madrush: this (website) is so hard to navigate, or find one’s way to the conversation, albeit it’s "infinite’. It could be me, of course, nearing extinction.
I object to some AI “suggesting” to me as to how I might converse better with others. This platform is … whatever. Insufficient? I have so much I wish to contribute, but can’t b/c of the technology, and those who profit from it. @johnnydavis54 yes, yes, and yes. And also, Defiance is/was a work of art, a sculpture, made by an artist (a crazy artist) back in 2005. I don’t talk with her, as I don’t talk with “Maggie” or “Horace”, but use them them as props. Defiance cost $3k so I’ve kept her - the others I’ve trashed.
w/r/t @ZacharyFeder 's piece concerning Singularity: So much I like, but so much I disagree with - people are different!! … so as to my reference to Leary’s “Interpersonal diagnosis of personality” (1957),
Take note of F & G on the wheel, which pertain to “integrity”, which tends to "pull"rejection & punishment.
And so to the “idea” of singularity, or “planetary” … commonality/cooperation/communitarianism - whatever - … JFC! We’ve been here before … . Google Woodstock / Grace Slick / White Rabbit, and so on.
What has changed? Evolved? Technology, not people.
We’ll chat Tuesday …