Participatory Spirituality for the 21st Century
A note on context - If, a mutually reflective and recursive assimilation of information between fractals, gives rise to new stuff, there’s no contradiction here . at the originary level Complimentarity or creativity are useful signifiers (do the boundaries between originary and arisings get thinner?) I could adopt difference/location and complimentarity to narrow down contradiction to an autopoetic initiative. Considering I’ve used the term for the former instances, that could be problematic
I love Alice in wonderland for its visual imagination and its finesse in jumping logic (we could leave jabberwock out of all this) Avatar is often crass in its eagerness to make a statement , a sort of ready to serve Sky people and Navi genre. It does address the mainstream denial of exploitation, to its tall credit. It might be that the colors are a problem . If Lewis Carroll’s streaming off Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was a sales pitch, his insight into epistemic fallacies and slippiness is right on the money.
And just when you think, through the shades of enigma, glints of textures take Hogwarts past the reaches of overt magic, Out come the cadre flying in sticks. The broom type crushes you, but then theres superman Neo zipping past dark matter. The oracle didn’t even tell him about that. Technology comes around , but the thinking is pushy ….
OK, this isn’t a review of a movie of everything. Just a fondness for slipping and sliding scales :)
This essay by Finkelstein (which I came across today) seems interesting, but I have to say that after reading it, I'm mostly in the dark. The vocabulary is too specialized for me to follow with much understanding. On a surface level, I'm curious about the 16-dimensional cell he references, since Tulku in his TSK work discusses a 16-dimensional model of time (perhaps inspired by quantum theory?).
The quantum world cannot be visualized.
Such interiority, on Bohr's understanding at least, is radically invisible: one must fully renounce visualization, he says.
I would say that this is a reflection of Quantum Theory, not of "the quantum world". It is true that current Quantum Theory does not have the qualitative aspect, namely a post-classical causation (immanent) nor an ontological model based on this required for visualization. This is why they are still stuck in "weirdness", etc. But in my experience with other models which have achieved great success moving forward into modeling the quantum world in post-classical causal terms, I can definitely say that the quantum world is indeed visualizable. You just need a more modern qualitative model to do so. :)
Well I've seen much of it rendered entirely sensible. I'd say that this "weirdness" is just complexity without a model to understand it. Get a model that factors in complexity and it's much more understandable. The "weirdness" you point to here seems a function (similar to polarization) of the interference of the waves, which are light. Weird, sure, but ultimately just a result of deep complexity. I don't see non-locality in the standard sense entering into this weirdness, unless you just mean the omni-locality (they are quite similar) of continuity, which indeed is the core of complexity. But it's much more tractable when understood in this way, and indeed even visualizable, given the computational power, and otherwise renders the mind much more capable of intuiting the truth of it, and resonating with the answers, such that it seems natural, not just "weird". Beautiful, and infinitely so, but natural.
Well, with the shift to the complexity view, with its immanent causation, we come to a very different basis for understanding these events based on emergence from deep complexity. This is what the "wave nature" is. Prior to that we have the "singular-linear" mechanics of "single-particle approximations" and "singlet wave functions", which are all based on particles, and Newtonian mechanics/causation. Even waves in classical mechanics deal with single lines, and even "nonlinearity" is a function of single curves, building probability clouds, etc. The shift to the quantum, what actually makes the quantum possible, is the infinity of immanence in continuity. This is what I mean with omni-non-local. It can appear as non-local or omni-local depending on the interpretive frame. non-local if you are looking for particles, i.e. in the classical frame, and omni-local if you have fully moved on to waves. Omni-locality in continuity is what gives the waves at this level their capacity to generate particles, actually. It gives them "super" powers, literally, namely frictionlessness and maximal fidelity wave transmission, quantum coherence, all that, is based on these emergent properties at this deeper (still recursive) level.
So, yes, we both agree that weirdness is nothing to be afraid of. Indeed it means we are ignorant and need to learn something, rather than that there is nothing here that can be learned. I think we both agree there. So, the complexity view opens this field wide open for the picking. It's indeed ripe!
Very cool. Have you heard of the cymascope, which is a technology for making sound visible? I think Kerry, who sometimes used to post here, was once involved in trying to develop something like this.
Regarding the nonlinear transitions between configurations, and the apparent chaos zones in between, I like to view therapy and meditation in these terms -- both of which can take one far from equilibrium and to a bifurcation point, where new order will spontaneously emerge. Guenther develops this idea well in his texts on Dzogchen and systems theory.
Exactly, Thomas, and Sorce Theory is essentially a cymatics in a continuous fluid dynamics. It's the perfect analogy and the root of complexity, which is why it works.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1
Since y'all are getting metaphysical perhaps you should try this tract by one of my former mentors, Paul Foster Case's "Correlation of Sound and Color."
He reveals heretofore esoteric secrets "so that prepared minds may use color and sound...for the development of a well-rounded consciousness, for the liberation of the profounder powers of subconsciousness in works of that true Magic of Light which from time immemorial has been called theurgy*."
* From whence my screen name originates.
From that work I developed a color-sound-visualization ritual using the 22 Hebrew letters, which themselves correspond to particular notes and colors. The letters are divided into the 3 Mothers, the 7 doubles and the 12 singles. The Mothers refer to the 3 primal elements of air, fire and water, the 7 doubles to the 7 planets and the 12 singles to the astrological signs. Each also has a correspondence in the human body. The Mothers are more general areas, like air the head, water the mid-torso, fire the genitals. The 7 doubles are the chakras, the 12 singles correspond to the astrological body areas. So one chants the Hebrew letter in the corresponding tone, focusing the vibration in the relevant body area while visualizing it bathed in the related color. Magic.
Or Tantra. I wonder which came first, Indian Tantra or Western magic? I'm thinking the former.
It seems moot which came first but perhaps both traditions came from the cradle of civilization in Persia? Recall some of the Tibetan history we went through elsewhere, noting this origin. And see this document, noting western magic coming from that direction.
I brought this up because of the vibrational aspect in the video, higher frequencies producing more complex forms. And that there has been knowledge of this around for a long, long time. However it's been dressed up in metaphysical and mythical garb, so how do we perhaps transformatively recontexualize it, as Anderson says here.