There exist a set of symbols, stories, toys, and games - that produce anomalous powers and experiences in adults. Rather than being uncommon, or exceptional...they are instead obscured, and severely common. So common are these basic forms, that there is neither thought nor shape which does not partake of them. So amazing are their sources and gifts, that no human story has ever even hinted at their potentials. All human children, all human people, are nothing but those potentials embodied in unique lifeForms. These forms link at various scales and virtual nodes to form base unities. All living beings, all living systems - are thus.And interestingly, so is our cognition...

(this text is presented in-process, some elements are well-sketched, others are emerging —
some errors and omissions are still present...)

Terms: Labels, Definitions and Cognitive Endeavor

When we begin a significant quest which largely diverges from our comfortable or familiar habitations of mind, activity or body, it’s functionally impossible to sufficiently prepare. What we can proactively attend is the cultivation habits of attention that can serve us well should the cognitive universes we create and inhabit change suddenly - or invert...

In the case of humans, we generally find newness disturbing and threatening, unless the vector seems either very gentle or very rewarding. This is almost never the case with really new experiences or metaphors. Encountering them is often more akin to being penetrated by something alien than tasting a new flavor of ice cream. Children are, at least in my experience in modern america, quite commonly ‘afraid of the dark’. This is the adult name for what children know as being ‘afraid of what is in the dark’. They are afraid of presences in the dark. Yet our adult term for their fear hides the real subjects, and makes an essentially false model, so that it is more easily dismissible.

After all, if adults were to admit in terms to such presences, it would be all the more difficult to dissuade the children from their fantasies. Presuming that the adults, and not the children, are more essentially correct. Frankly, my vote is with the little ones - relevant or not.

So, how do we deal cognitively and socially with novelty? Psycholinguistically, humans will, in a general way, merrily tend to get caught up, sometimes inexorably - in preparations for domains that we simply cannot create maps of expectation about with any reasonable degree of accuracy. It isn’t that we’re attempting something difficult - we’re attempting something that we have no skeleton for. We are allowed to sketch our predictions endlessly, but no amount of sketching will bring us any closer to the realities which presently await - because the essential natures of new experience or ideation are not easy to catalogue, classify, compare or attach labels to.

Usually, this is because there are no common labels (or even more primitive structures) in use that reasonably match the experience - or that element which we hope to classify, examine, explore or communicate. We cannot locate a skeletal cognitive structure with which we can test any of our predictive or expectationary behavior. We can’t even find a place to hang ‘tags’ - so to speak. Events of this nature are often generally extremely troubling, at best. Just as often, they cannot be clearly remembered because their participating momentums defy the structures we commonly use to record or examine them internally. From our inner cognitive domains, we get a message, which is alike with a null message : ‘no template for that kind of book, in this library. storage denied due to inadequate infrastructure’.

We encounter another species of cognitive obstacle when we are attempting to ‘examine something with itself’. We won’t generally spend a lot of time considering such an idea, unless something we are doing or hope to do requires it directly.

Part of why this concept is well known primarily to mathematicians and programmers is that it is relevant in their work, quite commonly. It’s called recursion, or self-referencing. But for those unconnected with the esoterica of these arts, the concept, or metaphor - is largely, and perhaps in the domain of experiential exploration - completely ignored . There’s no shame in this, it’s rarely applicable in our experiences of our physical activities or perceptions - after all, you won’t be using the wrench to adjust the wrench you are adjusting with anytime soon. Nor will you likely be examining your eye, with your eye.

Similarly, the chances of you using language the way a young and intrepid Sherlock Holmes might - in order to solve the mysteries of its genesis and activity - are slim. The chances that you will use the elemental structures of language itself to form the tools to accomplish this - those chances are functionally nil. Or at least, they have been. I would like to change that, preferably permanently. I don’t want to decide anything for you, instead, I desire to return some lost tools - and then depart.

Our physical experience is linked with our cognitive endeavor and natures inexorably; the structures of one inform and partially engineer those of the other. Thus, the metaphors we experience in reality, for example: I fix this with that - can and often do form essential templates upon which we work when we are assembling the realities we experience and consciousness in into parse-able structures - which we then, in turn, test, modify, observe, value, record, and offer as communication. These ‘non-things’ are comprised of inner domains of linked ‘tokens’ or trees of ‘locations’ which contain meaning/label information, stored in linkably hypersymmetric keys.

If this is true, or at least a useful model - to what immediate use can it be put? How can one realize experientially what cannot be rationally communicated in media? What happens when one gains a basic mastery over the integrations of what commonly function as highly specific cognitive domains?

And what’s this novelty problem about?

Let’s examine these terrains further.

Imagine that, within you in some hypothetical space, there is a kind of eye. We could use machines for the models, but I prefer organic models, so I will use sprites, gnomes, and other fantastical creatures. Remember, we’re just playing a game, with a toy, made of concepts. Nothing to lose, so play freely.

Consider that arbitrarily we have seven ‘eyes’ which are ‘inner spaces’ or ‘bags’ within which certain metaSymbolic activity takes place. Don’t be frightened by the term - it simply means, a symbol - with a poem attached. The poem can be fragmentary - brief - but when you put a symbol/map together with a ‘tinyPoem’ you get a metaSymbol. This is an essential cognitive tool in our model.

The ‘seven rooms’ with “seven eyes’ are inner domains where symbolWorking is done. These seven rooms (and their eyes) have special powers in common, and they also have unique powers as individual units. And those powers modulate and change, as well - especially according to the context of the moment. Now, we are nearly prepared for an interesting game. But before we begin, we need to understand something about engineering, nature, and humans.

Rarely do we see nature engineering the way humans do. We engineer with a ‘one-thing’ mind. Nature does so, invariably, with a ‘multi-thing’ at ‘multiple scales’ mind. The outcomes are radically different - with the former ending in grave overextension of resources for minute outcomes in general comparison. Put simply, terrible cost to produce ratios.

Unlike humans, nature always employs scalarity to produce faster and more elaborately self-stabilizing results. And she does so with a set of ‘non-things’ we might refer to as a group something like this: recombinant tinySystems. The secret our species has largely and tragically missed in her engineering could be referred to as scalar unification potentials for interscalar elaboratory benefit.

The smallest protect and source the largest.

So, in our (humanly) inner models - we are commonly doing something similar. We are inwardly engineering with that ‘one-purpose-now-please‘template of mind. Nature offers us many unexamined options in these domains.

Let’s say that each of our seven rooms represents a perspective. We could name them arbitrarily: emotion, rationality, desire, momentum, fear, lucidity, chaos. Instead of imagining that we ‘select one eye’ to see a situation or thing with, we could see that what really happens is that the seven eyes recombine to form a scalar shape, with the outcome eye appearing as a result of the valuing and scalar configuration of the other eyes. This model could be said to form the basis for a sentient neural network. I don’t care about that. What I want for us to share is the essential toy of the model. That is truly the important thing.

In our model, we achieve scalarity by forming the ‘eye rooms’ into a kind of ‘size tree’. We’ll keep it simple to begin with. Before crossing a street, we might (in the briefest instant - if we could see each inward shift) notice some inward activity that is actually a lot more accessible, and a lot more interesting than we may have been led to believe. One thing we discover rapidly is that we are assembling the reality we believe we are experiencing.

This has been suggested, proven, and outlined by many other people, but delivering the experience of it has been largely lacking. I am certain we can now eliminate that trend. Regardless, before stepping off the curb, and as we approach a decision-juncture, there is a moment - like a flash - in which an elaborate communications dance occurs. This dance is the focus of much of my work, for it goes quite significantly unnoticed by most of us, almost all of the time. It has certainly received far less attention than something this central to our natures should receive. The dance is with, in our model, the seven rooms of eyes.

Again, this is just a model - the important thing is this: an inwardly-directed communications-dance is occurring. And that implies inwardly separated domains, and possibly a lot more than that.

Let us expand our model only slightly, and treat each eye-room as a world. In that world, there is a single eye, which the concertive activity of all local eyes comprises. This is the eye we refer to in this room - the unityEye of the roomWorld. Thus, we discover the world we call Emotion to be (as all the remaining six) vastly populated with diverse character and momentums

Now, what happens as we approach the curb, to cross the street - is actually pretty amazing. First, we begin a process of what I call scalarly adaptive caching. We literally take and freeze a scalar series of photographs - a different set for each eye. As this is happening, each eye is ‘rapidMarking’ a kind of dotMap onto the snapShot as it passes into the parsingPile. A simple model of this is offered below - and the dotMap evolves a few times before getting set aside as 'done'. But before it gets to the pile, a series of scalar expansions of the dot-positions - shots from differing scales of magnification, or degrees of subject/context perspective - are taken and passed along with the overall original to the specific eye’s parsePile.

How many ‘shots’ are taken? Its probably related to far too many variables. My guess is that, most of the time we get ‘very few large shots’ and a moderate flow of detail-shots per overall caching event.

Of course, all of this happens in less than a second. But simultaneously, the ‘eyes’ in our inner rooms are devouring the incoming stimulus, and their are responding, and communicating that response in myriads of domains. One of those domains could be seen as the formation of a tree-like structure, which is scalar.

The above diagram is one possible toy of the model. In this diagram, the 'Link Nodes' are where decisions and valuings arise. Each 'eyeWorld' is actually far more complex, as complex, perhaps, as an actual biosphere such as earth — at least by the time we are well-entrenched in symbolic cognition, and that happens at different speeds for different people. The constituents of these eyeWorlds, in our model, are much simpler than lifeForms, structurally. The foremost eyeWorld is the 'person', and the structure is a virtual one : it exists in a real domain, but one with no obvious physical map, the domain of our inner cognitive activity, elaborations and experience.

But let's get back to this 'snapShot-ing'. Each eyeWorld might be said to control agents which are very simple recorderMessengers. These might be observed to relate to the 'ions' which still inhabit our english language — though we've lost the links of their meanings in our histories and linguistic evolutions. communicate-ION, rat ION a liz at ION, etc. IN our model, those ions are 'creatures', albeit of a cognitive nature and structure. They are an inner nanoSystem, a kind of daemon or gremlin, or lightGolem if you will.

In our model, these cognIONs, do some very interesting things, and actually, are some very interesting things. For example, they have a recombinantly emergent structure. But they are not like the eyeWorlds — in that they have two(sub-three) specific purposes — they instead resemble what we might model as a species of auto-recombinant cognitive nanoTech. Yet the most interesting feature of their structure is perhaps the most difficult to imagine: they are emergently comprised of tree-like communities of their own action and structure — they're made of themselves, in scalar assemblies.

Let's see if I can manage to model this clearly in language. They have two goals (sub-three) take and deliver a snapShot for an eyeWorld, during an iterative cycle of such activity. (secret: it isn't a snapShot, and it isn't objective, it's edited toward the source eyeWorlds persona or character — but more on that later). How does a 'single' cognION 'take' a snapshot? It does what cognIONs do for eyeWorlds, inwardly, to itself.

This would look like a scalar set of mirrors, where each 'scale' results in 'more of the snapShot' being 'assembled' by layers upon waves upon layers of recursively active 'replicas' of the cognION taking the snapShot; the 'picture' it will deliver, at its time, to the eyeWorld it serves, is not a snapShot at all. It is a scalarly fractline assemblage, and at each scale, biases are applied, filters, which ireversibly altar such assemblages away from objectivity in all, or functionally all cases. So, when we picture a cognION taking a snapShot, we should see scalar waves of assemblies, shrinking rapidly into minute oceans of cognION(n) scalar members, all rushing to 'deliver' their own snapShot, of which any other snapShot, at any other scale, is comprised.

So, each of these 'scalarly self-assembled' cognIONs belong to a given eyeWorld, and each one brings an essential 'dot' of information upon returning. They go in swarms, and return in swarms, each contributing a 'dot' of snapShot, to the stack from which the 'totality of this moment's snapshot' for that eyeWorld, is averaged. That means that, in any given eyeWorld, a single 'snapShot' is actually comprised (strangely, like the eyeWorlds) of scalar assemblages of snapshots, delivered by scalarly self-assembling messengers, who scalarly assemble their messages.

I agree, it gets a bit wordy, at best. Somehow I'll compress it, later. What we can see is that there are amazingly distributed domains of activity, at smaller and larger scales, with our cognitive persons. Understanding the import of ny vastly over-used term, is imporant. It should be a meaning that expands, as one gains experience of it, rather than crystalizing into laws or axioms.

~#~

Here, too, we might locate the source of the falicy of objectivity, which is an essential liguistic and active problem in our modern english language. Many semantic structures depend upon or accrue as mimicry this falicy. It is used to erase people, ecosystems, and planets. Objectivity is an attempt at a target,and where it pretends otherwise, it is instead merely falsehood, and thus, it is no more or less dependable or 'fair' or 'logical' than, for instance, poetry. It's all founded in language, and you can make any system of truths which such a tool, as you may possiby desire. The danger of such an amazing toy is obvious: one is likely to be forced to inhabit the worlds actively created and enforced by your toys. In cognitive, emotional, and physical terms.

~+~

Although it may sound like science fiction, what we - and our fictions fail to realize is that the set of elemental momentums we define as ‘nature’ has had hundreds of millions of years to ponder and engineer sentient toySystems whose goal could essentially be described in 4 words: solve problems with barriers.

And that’s just locally; many of the composers of science-fiction are well aware of the depth of this reality - that all of the momentums we participate and experience in were sourced in moments and places so distant in time and space that the fact that our metaphors place them as local and separate often seems absurd even as an exploratory device. How can elements in a single continuum not be related? Science asks the wrong questions because of its terrible addiction to the seductiveness of an assumed objectivity. But that objectivity shaves off whole domains of character — and in that specific activity, much hope, power of innovation, and inspiration is lost. The outcomes are often absurd.

All that we perceive and experience - as well as that which perceives and experiences and wears our name - has its sources in momentums that have been engineering the structures we arise from and comprise for countless eons before our local system was a fart in the intestines of goD, so to speak.

In fact, it is in no way unlikely, that all matter arose from a singularity that we might call ‘one particle’. Size, is clearly irrelevant. If everything came from one particle, there should be ample evidence. And, interestingly, there is. In nearly every possible domain. But especially in the domains of semantics, language, and symbolizing, as practiced by modern humans. Organelle’s mission is to reveal the ‘lost maps’ of this ‘one particle’s‘ evolution, and thus offer the opportunity to regain, in toto, the gifts of our potentials, as well as our histories, as miraculously unlimited cognitive lifeForms.

~#~

Human children are born, each with a ‘unique toySet’ of natively active sentience-systems. Modern society and semantics almost immediately deprive them not only of their cognitive birthrights, but of any evidence that they may once have existed as such.

The scalar outcomes of this activity are consistently catastrophic, in all domains of our personal and global societies. The causes of these outcomes are also rapidly reversible...

...by rescuing our children, we rescue ourselves. By healing others, and supporting and championing each other’s uniqueness...

...we find ourselves healed, and supported.

This is the nature of the systems we comprise and arise from. The denial of this essential nature in our cognitive experience and action, has now accrued the real and immediate potential to erase our species, and life, from our world.

That will never be a gamble worth taking, or allowing. There is no possible ‘win’ in such a situation. We must personally oppose in every possible domain the creation of metaphors which limit our cognitive, personal, creative and human potentials — instead of nurturing the diversities we are born to embody, comprise and elaborate as mutually inspired individuals and societies.

~#~

The chances are excellent that within the dust and gas from which our locally comprised solar system arose — ancient expressions of the ceaseless endeavors of alien worlds — waited patiently for a nearly impossible chance at self-elaboration. We do not encounter these supposed systems — we comprise and inhabit them — and they us. The more essential point is that this activity, apparently long at work in hypersymmetric domains of cosmic materiality and energetics, insures that ‘life’ crosses the vast gulfs of space in myriads of constantly evolving vectors — some so tiny as to appear incongruously invisible for their immense importance.

It makes little difference if terrestrial life was sourced kinetically from exobiological seeds such as bacteria or virii - or whether the component elemental chemistries conspired to raise living systems up from the proverbial dust. Nor do the oft combative questions of ‘creationism’ make much of a difference - we can certainly allow the activity of a universal intelligence which is sElf and extrinsically creative - how could we not? We are and comprise such a thing as individuals and groups. Nearly all possible endeavor by humans is, in the sense of a template, alike with the god(s) or deities they metaphy.

There is actually a fundamentally vast amount of data that positively implies the testable existence of a being or set of elemental characterizeable momentums which are commonly referred to as god or the unityBeing - and nearly none of it has been discussed or presented, because the evidence lies outside the domains relinquished to religion. This being the case, the religious and the scientifically minded alike will by nature tend to avoid such realms entirely - in speculation as well as scholarship. But I sense I’m dragging us toward a birdWalk...even though it leads to terrain cogent to the discussions of the moment and future, I’ll return to more central paths...

If we take the tools of science, language, metaphysics and signaling, and we abstract them into highly generalized domains - what we can directly observe, immediately and without ‘expertise’ is what science, and linguistics have failed entirely to reasonably deliver to our attention or intentions: we find a set of intelligent, or semi-sentient toolSystems which do not have bodies but instead occupy bodies as actively elaborative momentums.

We can literally locate in ourselves a species of ‘symbolically cognitive’ beings, who are metaphorically held captive by their tools, and being consistently ransomed back to themselves at unimaginable prices. And though few may be able to articulate it clearly enough to oppose it inwardly or socially, nearly every living person would admit the fact of encountering such systems, if they could clearly understand what it was like to be even momentarily free of the social and cognitive oppressions that consistently place the free elaborations of our identity and our liberty at odds.

Why are we effectively obliged, through threat of isolation, indenture, imprisonment or execution to forego the personally unique birthrights we were so clearly born to elaborate? How has it come to pass that a human could be born and perish in a modern society and never even glimpse these elemental treasures?

One of many essential problems is that nearly everything we will encounter will encourage us to continue in the path of our habituated and obliged servitude to paradigms, conceptions, rationalities, and principles which, in point of fact, have no possible goal but our indenture, silencing, and erasure. Often such erasures include the complete ecosystems from which they arose, as in the case of war, or extreme corporate bioConversion - both of which equate to ecocide. If a corporation creates a deadly momentum in technology or its common usage - or war creates desolation out of an incredibly ancient nursery - we are delivered into the hells our myths have painted, directly - in our lived experience.

Most often, we are forced into labor to effect and perpetuate our own virtual imprisonment - and, as adults, our experience appears to largely deny us, in scales which constrict with age, the essential cognitive and physical liberties which we playfully embodied as children.

Who or what is profiting from such an arrangement, and if it’s so prevalent, why is it almost never clearly attended or commonly addressed?

~#~

The implication is that the cosmos is self aware. It engineers living systems to engineer themselves in the mediums of light, matter and time. Their goal: cross every possible barrier with conserved complexity, diversity, and potential for scalarly intersystemic elaboratory endeavor.

In the science of robotics, the revolutionary art we might now refer to as nanoSystems not only implies the power of slight modulations of simple templates, it reveals clearly that these succeed where complex conceptual approaches can only fail or lag sadly behind.

But we do not need science or robotics to understand these features and momentums in ourselves and reality - nor to deeply participate in and enjoy the many fruits of this unique way of experiential understanding. The family of charactered momentums we refer to as Nature, has a few deeply essential sub-programs, and the one our metaphors and languages, our experience and semantics do not in their natures tend to be able to acknowledge is constant and rapid scales of change - yet in every possible environment, this is the reality. Thus, Nature programs living organisms with perhaps a single instruction, from which all others may descend...

Here’s the short version: leap gaps - faster and faster.

This simple rule is so elementally everPresent and so critically important to achieve a base cognitive familiarity with that the simple act of ignoring it nearly insures some form of catastrophic cognitive outcome; it is a base and primal rule of biological natures, evolution, populations and the future of animalian life as we may know or come to understand it the ebb and flow of time.

An addendum: When you get to the unleapable gap, encode a seed that contains your progress in a survivable eggForm before you invert the entire terrain, and thus gain your impossible goal.

If we were looking for an essential metaphor that might give answer to the ancient lineage of questions that we’ve distilled into ‘what is the meaning of life?’ - the simple rule above, with it’s addendum, would qualify as an excellent starting selection, and could prove to be more true than the vast majority of competing ideas or paradigms. Either way, it’s a much better starting place than those in common use, especially in industrialized societies.

 

(mark of translation in process)

 

Animals, infants and children are generally sentient in more simultaneous domains than adult humans - and this is geometrically more true in industrialized or industrializing societies. The clue provided by this latter clause — is a key to treasures so profound that few adults could reasonably imagine them...and most of those who could would dismiss them as ‘mere’ fantasy.

One wouldn’t start a car, strap an infant to the gas pedal, put it in gear and let it run randomly about - so how are we obliged to a position where we can only do something similar with our symbolic cognition? Is that the extent of the ‘gift’ of language?

 

Consider these story-worlds with us briefly:

Take an earthlike planet which entirely lacks all forms of living matter, but is atmospherically and temperately inhabitable. Regardless of potentials, we could (possibly) reasonably asset such a planet is a ‘lifeLess’ - an insentient instance of a set of chemical, temporal, gravitic and energetic templates. A ‘sphere’ of elemental chemistries obeying certain still rather poorly understood ‘laws’ (which are never meant to be laws in the first place - but instead stepping stones toward a position which is essentially more true). A kind of clockwork device where interactive and transformative momentums play out in linear observations in a generally predictable or metaphyable way or set of ways.

This is in fact, the activity of matter observed from the perspective of linear temporality. Poetically, we might state that an essential ‘law’ of nature from this perspective is that things cannot fail to elaborate in scalar fashion. From a uniquely human perspective, we might say this: Things become more and more what their sources and modulations are - in scales, over discernable distances in perceived time. But where is it written that we are so doggedly required to adopt what is popularly proffered as a human perspective?

*q: Can such a planet be said to be alive, though it lacks any discernable cellular activity? If our story-world is or will certainly be a nursery for cellular activity, is the planet then alive?

What if the inert processes that our chiastic elemental clockwork device comprises and participates in literally give birth to life - or will in the future as a certainty - is the planet then considered to be essentially alive as a being or creature might be, albeit upon a different scale?

In yet other words - how complex and interPenetrating must the activities and constituents of a living world become before we can accept with reasonable certainty (and directly experience) a given planet as being an essentially discernable holarchy - a single individual hypersystem of sentient endeavor, which - alike metaphorically with a human person - has character, grows, desires elaboration and survival - perhaps even loves?

Is there any possible arrangement of circumstance under which we might - with the great and mundane comforts of rationality, reason and evidence - be willing to accept that the similarity between a human body and a planet is far more vastly significant than we can imagine. The reason is not in our shape, though it is evinced there - but in an essential and highly generalized template: A circle of interCommunal scales of sentient endeavor - which in turn, through their linkages and the ‘geometric outcomes of the activity of the very small’ create what is, in essence, an impossibility device: the human cognitive animal.

Now, many people might claim to be willing to consider a planet as a scalarly fractional reflective individual, and people (or humans) as generally alike with this template - but when they do this they most often do it in concept rather than realized experiential intimacy with the meaning of the terms. Would they consider each separate terrestrial lifeForm even as they do their own species? How is it they could fail to do so?

We find in our speculations that we can easily arrive at a participant who is indignant at the implication that they do not understand the concept of this living and distributed interSystemic and interScalar holarchy - yet such a person will most often remain and express themselves as inwardly convicted that they do, in fact, understand.

When challenged, however, to display their understanding in an active, rather than semantic modality - 99.9999% of participants would not only be unable to do so, many would become overtly combative at the suggestion.

We would discover that an aspect of metaphor-linkages which such ‘defenders’ cannot admit is that each living element in a hyperstructure is of essentially the same value - and more, that if one burns down a tree, the lost complexity and diversity is directly translated into a loss in the locally available momentums and activities of sentience - and from there it is translated into all possible and potential systems, at every possible and potential scale.

Thus, each living being - is a unique instance of a common, scalar template: a highly specialized and incredibly adeptly engineered ‘intersystemic floating neuron’. Such complexity is never nurseried or elaborated in time by terrestrial environments without vast cost - because there are laws that demand a general conservation of energy and momentum. And death, in so much as we understand it, stands quite highly in the court of those laws, from the perspective of living humans, and perhaps the Biome as a whole.

Thus, the value of a functioning ecosystem, with a large variety of evolutionary participants intact, is incalculable. It has the same value as finding a 47 phase transdimensional organic calculation device with self-optimizing sentience features. Why does it have the same value? Because that’s precisely what it is.

Imagine that one day, in a field, you discovered the alien device depicted above, in full functioning order. What do you suppose its ‘dollar value’ might be? If you did find such an unlikely treasure - would you tear it apart to sell the tiny bits as souvenirs for a rapidly liquid ‘profit’?

This is the activity of modern commerce, and it is as reprehensible as it is inexcusable. There is no pundit capable of offering a defense to set of endemic cognitive and commercial momentums that are rendering a living world into tokens to be traded, acquired and discarded.

What this means is that destroying an ecosystem is, in terms of planetary and localized cognitive and physical potentials, akin with taking a living form or system which has been being carefully modulated and tuned for thousands of millions of years - and erasing not only that being or system, but all of the experiential benefits of the engineering which are stored, like a book, in that which we erase. We generally trade this incredible wealth - incalculable wealth of living lineage and mysterious mastery of elemental lifeSystems for something like a gumball - comparatively.

This ‘defense of our already-present understanding’ as aspect of our behavior is offered as being elemental to our natures - it’s not essentially problematical, unless it’s driving the vehicle we are, so to speak. There are also simple ways of detecting and exposing such mimicry.

In a ritualized process in the some Zen traditions (which are actively experiential rather than theoretical) the teacher challenges the student to answer for their presentations - which means, in essence to prove beyond doubt the elemental nature of their experience, rather than their ideas - and to do so adeptly and consistently - in a fashion that is improvisatory, rather than based upon rules. But that it is improvisatory, does not mean there are no rules.What it means, instead, is these are very unusual rules : they have the feature, so rare amongst human rulesets, of liquidly changing shape during scalar integrations between subject and context.

This ‘answer-flow-change-adeptly’ requirement has a place in Zen interview because it’s easy to emulate understanding or certain superficial knowledge-signs. But, contrarily for the interviewee - cognitive systems in real equanimity are essentially difficult to disturb. If the aspirant has equanimity, they will not topple easily, and will not tend to overcorrect, or attend to correction at all. Thus, the interview is really testing something that isn’t superficially apparent, and is nearly impossible to mimic or simulate. The power isn’t in Zen, or even the practice we’re describing: it’s in the essential problems, barriers, and powers of perspective in gaining mastery over what might be described from one perspective as simulations of ourselves. Simply stated - our tendency to mimic rather than express or innovate, particularly when under stress or scrutiny.

In these ‘interviews’, each answer will be distinct and unique, regardless of whether or not the question is precisely the same - with each examination. If it doesn’t, we’ve found a fetish, instead of an answer; should we cling to such things, the outcomes - in cognitive, experiential, or energetic terms - are generally going to oppose our desired or purported goals.

Thus, in a functional sense, the outcome of any significantly successful Zen Interview would be a kind of shattering or reCognition of the essences of our perspectives, experience, biology and perception. At the roots, we find keys.

Since time immemorial, we’ve gone to the base of the Tree to obtain celestial gifts. This is no mere fantasy, and has nothing at all to do with superstition. It could, from one perspective, be said to have nothing to do with the vegetable Trees at all; it is their shape and natures which are critically important to our species in a cognitive sense.

The reasons why this is so are as mechanically demonstrable as what we refer to as the periodic table. We’re made of the reasons, in scales. When we come to the place where the trunk joins the root - a clue to the very nature of clues arises instantly as a real cognitive potential which we may endeavor to grasp.

Whether or not we can detect, credential, and follow its tail is another matter entirely, and generally a uniquely personal one.

~#~

Back to our ‘story world’ for a moment...

Now, let’s take an arbitrary human from Earth, and transport the human to our theoretical planet - which has no other ‘living’ activity. We should realize that a living human comprises a complex cellular biosphere.

*q: Now can such a planet be said to be alive?

We are getting at an essential question about the nature of life - what it is, and what constitutes a closed or individual set of lifeSystems that can or perhaps should be identified as an ‘individual’. The method by which humans cognitively differentiate one individual ‘being’ from another from the same template might be referred to as character evaluation. These complex (but simply mechanical) processes occur in many domains nearly simultaneously - in practice. But it is the essential elements of unique character that enable us to differentiate between like subjects of attention or observation. When we recognize this clearly, we can see that any ‘object’ which is in any way ‘in environmental coupling’ with any ‘living system’ at some point is no longer essentially inert.

Let’s change the vector of our questions for a moment:

Is the human on this planet ( a planet with no other life) the same human that we took from the earth?

In other words, to what degree can a human be said to be separate from their physical, energetic and cognitive environment? Without any other living matter to interact with, what are the real cognitive potentials for our experimental traveler? How much of our real cognitive endeavor and experience, is interaction with living forms - directly?

Now let’s take the questions a little further:

If all the life forms of a given planet form a web which is essentially unified, do you not change the entire world and cognitive potential of all living beings when a species is annihilated? Isn’t it changing constantly with each system’s death or subsystemic erasure? Probably, but when a species or culture is erased, the essentially available potentials of character are forever minimized. This is clearly against ‘Nature’, since it is the most likely vector of total biospheric collapse for all current and possible participants. Regardless of the truth of the foregoing assertions, we might profitably inquire, how many of the indigenous species of Earth would have to be annihilated, before the thing we call a human being, is no longer the same as what we consider it to be? At which point does the human population actually become something that is not what we reCognize or categorize as human.

In other words, is it not possible that the global potentials for cognition are a direct result of the extant complexity and diversity - as well as the status of the vehicles of those momentums in the biosphere? Could it be that by reducing contact with naturally evolved ecosystems, we are, in reality, consigning ourselves to an obligatory set of mechanical metaphors that neither serve, nor elaborate our potential, but instead convert our cognitive and physical energies and activities their own safety and elaboration?

It has to be more than possible. Because if you took all the other species away - what would be left would not match our definitions of human at all. Those born post facto would never be able to comprehend what the term ecosystem meant, experientially. Animals and trees would be myths, the subject of ‘art’. The experience of such hominids, their cognition, their opportunities to explore their lived realities - would be absolutely different from our own, with the exception that we appear to be willing to explore such realities directly, rather than in theory.

So how is it, exactly, that the wholesale erasure of whole hypersystems of anciently evolved cognitive life-symmetry is not seen as the erasure of human hope, potential, and survival?

It is not science-fiction to believe that the locally available cognitive potentials depend entirely upon the state and accessibility of unique momentums in nature, and that on a planetary level the local lifeForms exist as a singular cognitive unity, in much the same way that myriads of specialized cellular hyperstructures exist in the human body.

We’ve made the mistake of believing in (as foundational) separations which are functionally impossible. The ‘more true paradigm’ is that when one destroys vast areas of highly evolved ecosystems, that activity is burning down human beings at the same time, quite directly. The vectors may not be as clear as if you shot a large group of people dead, but they are certainly just as functional, especially when ignored.

The point is simple: Complexly evolved ecosystems are the single most valuable asset on any possible planet.

Their wholesale conversion to copies of material objects, is genocidal, and ecocidal.

We have to stop eating the world, because eating the world is eating ourselves.

(mark of translation in process)

Note: We are not suggesting the below is factual, merely that it’s a useful speculative set of questions...

(*super-q (island biologist domain): What would happen on a world like earth, which was ready to support cellular life but as yet had none, if a spacecraft filled with five humans crashed, killing all of them, but not sterilizing them in the process. Could the resultant ‘contamination’ of this world comprise a seed-point from which an entire evolutionary dance (such as the one Earth has thus far enjoyed) could arise?

We can see the potential for surviving cellular colonies from the decaying bodies and perhaps food-material of our hapless astronauts - and they’d be carrying virii, mold spores, bacteria - so could an entire planetful of diversity arise, given millions of years, from such a seed? Along with this seed, we could also have interstellar biological matter arriving during the process, via impact events, dust, or even other ‘spacecraft’.

Would such a seed be likely to produce homo sapiens - or a similar species? Did it do so here?

If not, how and why can we be certain?)