live: light; in vehicles emerging
evil: emerging vehicles; in
light
If we begin by noticing and credentialing
that it is light and its sources emerging in vehicles,
the light (read: source/transport) becomes primary in our
value and seeing — and this is magnified vastly in
all future relations that involve light, seeing, or models we
make as progeny of these two expressions. This means that underneath
the surface of our metaphors, we will conserve a meaning-shape
about organismal relation to light that is poetic and proceeds
to gain unique character and expression. This will be vastly
magnified in any metaphoric ‘children’ that refer
to or include relation with light — in all of
our metaphors — and even the schemas with which we assemble
and value ‘knowledge’.
Since light is a source-root for the creation
(or possibility of creation) of other metaphors, our ‘hidden’
or foundational decisions and agreements about ‘which
class of knowledge-object’ it belongs with are going to
be not only reflected — but exponentially magnified—
in every later metaphor we create, assemble, follow, value or
express. If we make an error here, it will explode into every
corner of human knowledge and experience for this reason. It
may also be able to ‘hide itself from our sense of error’
such that we can soon become unable to notice or address not
only this sort of problem, but the entire domain in which the
problem arises: the meaning-relation (and ‘class’)
shapes of the metaphors we select and authorize for various
terms in common use.
Light is a holophore — a necessary seed idea to which
we refer (and which we divide in a way that causes the child
to be more complex than the parent) in order to allow us to
proceed with the assembly, relation, or parsing of other metaphors.
If we, for example, make it into a mechanical thing (if we emphasize
the physics of radiant energy, &c. and properties over its characters and poetics),
we are damaging a root from which other metaphors derive as
children, thus we might arrive at a place where, for example
the idea of ‘light making children of itself’ is
absurd — ‘things’ do not ‘make children’.
So if ‘light is a thing’ it ‘has no progeny’.
Such an error could also lead us to vastly misinterpret the inward
illumination which is perhaps the compliment of its outer counterpart:
consciousness.
With ‘consciousness’ we require a
metaphoric ‘light’ to see with(in) ourselves or ‘a
matter’. If this ‘inner light’ is shaped in
metaphor as ‘primarily mechanical’ in its class,
features and outcomes — the whole garden of what it means
to be human is poisoned; there is no ‘position actually
like us’ that we may freely adopt because elemental foundations
at the root of our metaphor-character elements have been flattened through misabstraction, and thus compromised.
This very real danger is active and vastly empowered on our
world in this time: so much so that we no longer ‘believe
in’ dreams. After all, if light is essentially mechanical,
and inward light is too — well dreams must just be some
‘extra sparks’ of some sort — coming
out of a machine that — like everything, we are told —
has no story or character or meaning of its own.
Any inaccuracy in our understanding-relation with
this root-metaphor will radically magnify itself in all sub-and-superconcepts relating to it,
such that tokens only 4 or 5 steps removed will in some cases contain more error than content! Relations 8 steps removed become error
factories — they actually transmit ‘nothing
but error’ to anything and everything they contact —
and these too, have progeny and effects on other tokens by relation.
Examining the opposing polarity of this circumstance, we can
see that even the most modest general correction in
our understanding of a holophore — such as light —
will explode into all of its realted concepts (for us, nearly all concepts) instantly, creating waves of ‘knowledge-repair’ that
result in something we have no idea about: a shockwave
of awakening to potentials powerful enough to transform what it means to be human — or save a planet — in an extremely
short period of time.
If one corrects a root metaphor —
the correction, just like the damage — explodes geometrically
out into all the tokens relating to it — any repair to the root — automatically repairs all of
the damage in all of the related concepts.
If (as we have largely been taught to do) we notice
the vehicles before the light, we establish
the vehicles (read: superficial or material structure)
as primary, (in terms of meaning-value-relation)
and we begin to make a terrible error of lineage-relation —
the rapidly accruing result of which is that light will be thought
of, valued, experienced and ‘seen’ (inwardly metaphied)
as ‘emerging from vehicles’ — rather than
the other way around.
If the only tools available to us value the
vehicles before their sources, we apparently end up creating atrocity
— no matter the virtue of our intention or the shape of
our plan. Ironically, all of our work creating this atrocity
is engendered and accomplished with the desire to create its
opposite. Part of the reason is in our animalian nature, and
another part lies in the structural character of the toys of
knowing we credential and employ.
o:O:o
There is ‘a sentient feature’ built
into the gardens we enter and emerge with knowledge from, and
this feature is tasked with protecting the garden from those
who would ‘value the wrong thing first’. Part of
the way it accomplishes this is with a form of mimicry —
a topic which must be explored in reasonable detail elsewhere...
‘That which comes first’ gets primordially
valued in a very unique (and difficult to notice) way
which proceeds to geometrically magnify itself into
every future construct of any sort whatsoever —
in every domain or dimension of human experience, reflection,
and activity.
The only reason we can assemble the opportunity
to notice it here is because I am pointing directly at it —
it is the ‘class-generator’ feature of ‘whatever
comes first’ — in terms of the prescriptive effects
of this feature on the metaphors later produced by reference
to our choices in these domains.
Simply stated, humans tend to select for class
as a precursor to any sort of intellectual or conscious assembly
of tokens, relations and meaning . In the case we are exploring,
which is merely ‘a toy’ of the reality of what I
am pointing toward, an ‘essential meaning-relation error’
is being made ‘regarding which comes first’ (in
value of meaning) — light, or a vehicle?
There are many features of this activity we are
not well equipped to notice or attend, and I believe the most
important of them, are poetic — characters and transports
of related-ness and distinction in meaning. As an example I
would cite that the ‘first mover’ advantage is a
structural congruence momentum that enforces its own structure
on the field: English is the primary language on the internet
even though the primary user-population is not largely comprised
of English-speakers or users. The penetration of English as
the first language of the internet has repercussions in a variety
of domains we do not attend — and they have primarily to do
with how organisms, or their tokens of cognitive relation, create
a field effect in sentient media — i.e: living planets.
Similarly, the penetration into the human cogniscium of an essential
error in a root metaphor like light — tends to rapidly
establish and defend its right to reproduction in such a way
that we ourselves may never have the opportunity or power to
dislodge it. Because the things we’re trying to modify
or dislodge this problem with are made of what we’re trying
to change...
o:O:o
It is by the consistent magnification of ‘very
small errors’ of relation-valuing and precedence-ordering
— embodied in our common principles of assembly,
practice and activity — that we find ourselves hugely
lost in the terrains where our own knowledge and understanding
are born and emerge from. This is as true at the level of individuals
as it is at the scale of cultures, and even of our species taken
as a unity.
Vehicles (as we are calling them) emerge from
sources. Thus if you posses and express and elaborate character
and emotion — it is because your sources have character
and emotion.
This means your sources are non-mechanical.
And that abstract knowledge, while interesting — is essentially
a game we agree to, not fact.
Whatever we, and ‘light’ may actually
be — these unthings are entirely, magically, impossibly
non-mechanical.
The problem is, the closest metaphor we have for
‘what they are like’ is machine. The reason
is simple. Our sources ‘dance and sing’ in a way
that ‘looks musically mechanical’. But in truth,
they, and we ourselves, are more accurately ‘the
opposite’ of a machine, than either are ‘like a
machine’.
A more accurate statement would be ‘machines
are like us, except shaved of almost everything important’.
The shaving renders ‘a tool’. Sometimes, a tool
of knowing. So we are not biological machines, because the idea
of machine is far too vast a shaving of organismal reality to
apply it ‘over the top’ of what is already present.
We are about a billion times ‘more alike’
with what we call ‘a star’ than we are with our
model of ‘human’, ‘animal’, or ‘different
kind of machine’.
o:O:o
If I wish to speak openly of the sources of atrocity
in human history and modern experience, I must somehow wrangle
myself first into a relationship with the question of Evil.
Many have assailed this mountain (or fallen into this vortice),
and few (in my experience) have emerged with anything like an
antidote, or even a relatively good map.
Of compasses we’ve seen vast quantities,
and many of these turn out to be evil themselves, once frozen
into codicil and granted any active authority. Yet without
experts, maps or compasses each of us has experienced directly,
witnessed, and most likely participated directly or indirectly
in the perpetration of atrocity — and in most cases it
would be fair to guess that we’ve dabbled in witnessing,
perpetrating, opposing and ignoring atrocity in many different
times, circumstances dimensions — etc.
Some few brilliant explorers and their admirers
and translators have in some degree succeeded in ascertaining
what might be done to allow us as a common people to better
understand Evil, and often these authors of the impossible have
been obliged (by the character of their own understanding of
the threats and opportunities of what they were attempting)
to resort to parable, paradox, non-sense, rhyme, fable
— and even children’s stories —
as their vehicle of recording. Many other authors, attempting
to rise above the threats of common rejection and jeering, crafted
codicils which are entirely admonitory in character —
and in most cases these ‘litanies of law and threat’
are the poorest possible mimic of what they purport to expertly
represent.
A goodly quantity of these amazing artifacts (read: doors) left
by these pioneers are of truly incalculable value*. Unfortunately
‘the value-domain’ or ‘class of knowledge-recording’
that these records fall into is easily cast aside as ‘informal’
— or ‘essentially fantasy’.
[*The Little Prince, The Alice
stories, The White Mountains trilogy, A Wrinkle in Time, &c]
Some of these doors wear ‘formally religious’ dress,
an idea whose oxymoronic structure should be clearly apparent
to those who’ve directly sought after the sources of religion.
It is my hope that we can together directly discover
that realities of our human position, potential and inspiration
for fulfillment are far more unique than many multiplications
of the sum of our most esoteric fantasies — including
all of formal religion combined. And this, which is my personal
experience, suggests that there is a serious problem alive
and actively replicating its schema with(in) the gardens
of the sources of knowing (how we know, about how we know).
A ‘sort of extremely fundamental error’
in the way we relate with the inhabitants of that anciently
conserved place. We must never trade these fantasies for direct
and mutual exploration — done only after completely setting
aside our common or existing models — and even our common
‘ways of looking into’ things.
As evidence that something is rather seriously
amiss we may routinely observe that it is our habit of mind
to refer to cognitive or intellectual constructs with nouns
— which in turn has the implicate function of forcing
us to value-class them as ‘things’. I am not the
first to suggest that the idea that knowledge is a ‘thing’
rather than a sentient movement is logically and experientially
absurd — but it is not merely absurd, it is deadly. This
single mistake ‘wrecks our value-exploration toys’
— all of them. It even destroys the toyboxes — and
our own bodies. Perhaps more interestingly, we speak to each
other of ‘knowledge’ as though it were factual,
tangible — an actual object. But what if it more accurately
belongs to class we have no metaphor for? Why have we not
sought the invention and ongoing attenuation toward ever-greater
accuracy of such a metaphor? There is an actual reason, and
it is not necessarily the one we would rationally produce in
an attempt to resolve this matter.
Even a verb would not suffice to refer to the source or form
of these unthings. We need instead ‘an entirely new sort
of metaphor’. Not merely a new metaphor, but a new
kind of metaphor (or concept identity-membrane) —
a new form of ‘cellular inhabitant’ in the sentient
nursery that is the garden of our sources, senses, and knowledge.
In the garden of the sources of knowledge, there
is no ‘thing’ at all — because the foundation
of the garden itself is alive in a way we have as yet no
metaphor for. Nothing is not the same as no thing —
because ‘no thing’ can mean ‘not a single
-thing- but a hypersymmetry of lives’ — in other
words, beings — not things.
The way of this aliveness is much more ‘magical’
than it is systematic — regardless of our stubborn insistence
that anything ‘real’ can be systematically understood.
In the long process of our rise (or perhaps more accurately
our descent) into the grave and serious gardens of specificity
(in terms of schema and classes) we neglected to examine
our schemas that allow us to resolve what is real. All
that is real, as well as that from which what we consider ’real’
emerges — is ‘more alive’ that organisms are
— and we have ‘no class’ for such an idea
– thus we will refrain even from speculations in this
direction. We don’t, in other words, have a class-metaphor
for ‘more alive than it is possible to understand’.
The closest ones we have are largely owned by ‘functionally
irreal’ knowledge-classes: spirit, angels — aliens,
and ‘god’. And these toys — all of them, have
been ‘growing more broken in scales’ for thousands
of years.
When we agree to the concept (as a game) of
formal understanding, we aren’t yet creating a problem
— but when we agree that ‘anything that isn’t
systematically formalizable’ isn’t ‘real’
— we’ve instantly made a cataclysmic error of relation.
Similarly, and in the modern moment more significantly (pun
intended) if we decide that ‘ideas are fact’ because
‘systems of ideas which are autoconsistant (and self-generated)
say so’ — we are making a trade that we cannot
easily detect the real natures of.
Its real outcome — the results of this trade — are
the seeds from which human atrocity — and much of our
human suffering and confusion — are born. Essentially,
if the toy of knowledge ‘remains a toy’ and we always
look to the toyMaker(s) (without freezing systems of looking)
in our hearts and minds as ‘primary’ then all of
creation is alive with direct experiential interContact (play).
If instead we are obliged to decide that ‘everything is
really just complex machines’ in individual recombinance
(because what we ‘put first’ demands or even
merely implies this) we end up forgetting about toyMakers
altogether, and putting the toys not only about our sources
and gardens of reGenesis, but above all of sentient Life on
our world.
Most would believe we all agree that putting toys
before children is a deadly idea. Yet a brief glimpse at the
state and circumstance of our world, and our cultures should
suffice to immediately startle us into recognition that our
action as a species is in direct opposition to this idea —
and this activity has clearly at this point accrued a cataclysmic
momentum. It does not have to ‘hide’ itself. It
hides ‘right in front of our eyes’. The reason?
It emerges from something extremely elemental in our relationship
with inward simulation and objective valuing: knowledge —
and ‘thinking’.
We cannot and must not conserve the foundational belief that
the essential matters of human experience and expression, of
liberty or knowledge — can be frozen and encoded into
concrete systems by which we will judge and persecute each other
and our children. It is true that ‘some toys of relation’,
such as those we call science can be incredibly valuable
— but these are toys — and must never be placed
in the position of authorization over the character-reality
that we ourselves are, and are here to become.
Such a seemingly small error — that of enthroning statistical
and deconstructive ‘authorities’ as the gatekeepers
to the trees of knowledge and their fruits — is precisely
the sort of simple mistake that grows tentacles into every single
domain of relation, and these grow in size and power and
growing speed geometrically once established.
In other words, the ‘general character-nature
of the position(s) from which we obtain authorization to pursue
knowing and schemas of knowledge-assembly descends to us’
is either primarily pro-sentient (which is always pro-organism
.vs mechanism) or it is primarily pro-artifact. In science,
the stable artifact, or ‘proof’ is the
arbiter of truth. Yet in organismal reality, ‘proof”
is never even vaguely this mechanical — or flat or frozen
(movement-flat). Organismal truth, and thus emotional and even
cognitive truth — are nothing like the flat models we
declare and adore as ‘knowledge’. The danger of
this circumstance is that we are speaking of perhaps the most
foundational gardens and sources of human emotion, experience,
expression and understanding. If the primary methods of contact
and intercourse with ‘ourSelves’ is pro-artifact,
this means it requires ‘room’ to ‘swarm swarms’
of ‘copied copies’ into all participants.
And the ‘space’ required for these
artifacts is cognitive, emotional, expressive and intellectual.
In other words, the game plays out like a war over terrain between
mechanical self-copiers (token-forming artifacts) and organisms.
The unchild (mechanistic mode of process) is attempting to ‘take
up all of the space’ (and more) that their organismal
sources require. The ‘first part’ of the space thus
sequestered in this war is connective. The unchild ‘eats
up’ all the ‘transports of union’ and replaces
them with something that ‘looks a lot’ like what
is supposed to be there — but in reality is just another
artifact-factory — exponentially following its dead (this
IS a thing) ‘program’ of geometric conquest of domains,
terrain, transports, contexts, inputs and outputs.
In human history and modern experience this problem
rapidly magnifies itself to the degree that the obstruction
becomes the substitute for missing experiential intimacy,
and this is a loss of unholy magnitude indeed. It is like exchanging
the idea of trying to hit someone with a thrown steel ring for
the many dimensions of relation embodied in the tradition of
marriage. It is the trade of something superficial, for something
of transdimensional value and purpose.
In exchanging the product for the source
(or the object for intimacy with the schema,
or the schema for the ways of assembling schema)
we find ourselves, as individuals and as a species, engaged
in the same kind of childlike innocence that might have led
a ‘savage’ (read native inhabitant) to ‘trade
land’ (amongst the most absurd of possible ideas...land
cannot be owned, only shared or disputed) for ‘a token’
— such as a piece of jewelry, or another artifact of value
which they themselves were not familiar with the production-schema
of.
