Gestalts (and by "gestalt", I mean a sort of overarching postonctopoetically resident (at least in its direct senses) kind of transcorporeal bose einstein cluster of minds all sharing the same quantum (that it is in fact quantum in the same sense of Schrodinger and Heisenberg is not demonstrable here) state are a troubling and weird thing, and also nifty and amazing. But what's important to grok here is a matter of sensory perspective. As a primate authoring this on a primitive computer on J. Random Planetoid in J. Random Universe, there's not really much that I can say in terms of direct sensory experience of gestalts from an orthogonal perspective: they are things to lose oneself in, and it reflects some measure of patience and curiosity to have the choice to ask which kinds of gestalts are worth my time and energy. Some kinds of complicated gestalt interplay are currently transpiring on a very real sense in the stage play of the controversy on life sciences, and regrettably these debates are, in the short term in the very least, kind of for nought. That is to say that while we do have the tools to examine how religion affects our culture, we do not have the tools to deal with gestalts as a whole or with the kind of tweezers that would allow us any real analysis in above mentioned opaque quantum mechanical strata of detail. I'm scared enough by the religiosity with which orthodox atheism and religious fundamentalism seem to have. It seems to be a contest of fools, really. And if you then procede to ask me: "well, if you think neither of these extremes is useful, can you suggest a middle ground, between scientific method and belief?", and the problem is that I can't, not at least in the way either side wishes. From a more general perspective, I'm talking about things which aren't available to direct sensory perception, and in that territory there's always the risk that my ideas won't be perfectly transcribed or translated. So, I've got questions of presentation and representation which I frequent to mull over.
The kind of 'beware, faulty reasoning lies beyond here' signs I wish to post before the Oubliettes of Monism, The Cathedrals of Pure Logic, The Rabidity of Meme Marketeering, The Mindless Audacity of the Genes, The Fetishistic Worship of Science, Radical Objectivism, and so forth. In each of these there are sensible filaments interwoven, so I can't provide a sharp and clear map where the florid and ebullient reasoning lies, and where the disasters lurk. This is kind of a primitive gestalt shopping, at least not in a religious context. I ask of myself: what do I want in a gestalt? And I find that none of the gestalts which surround me have just the right mix of things I want all coalesced together. As per my limitations above I cannot readily find a list of extant gestalts, but I can say some extremely rudimentary things about the ones that occur in this world at the moment. Many are characterized by repetition or reinstantiation of simple, uncomplicated carrier memes and carrier frequencies by people of similar genetic clades. While these may have similar, homomorphic, or isomorphic divinity code when considered holotomically, in their lower level code, there is much strife: lower order code comparisons bring about war, violence, and idiocy for the stupidest of reasons (not passing a clade membership test is enough to warrant death in some cases).
Fantasy: imagine a functor that images the spaces which gestalts occupy to people or humanoid schizotomes/representations. And an inclusion that would allow me to examine each from the outside, as a whole. How would that work out? It's an idle fantasy of someone who wants to have more information about a belief system that they're searching/shopping for. How would each of these gestalts rate on a self-awareness test. Would they even be conscious of themselves as gestalts? Or would they be frogs or butterflies or donkeys or bacteria? Again, since the gestalt holotome is not in my sensorium as the smell of geranium oil or the taste of milk is, I cannot answer this question directly. I think I would prefer a gestalt that was in fact, self-aware, rather to one that wasn't. And if all gestalts are self-aware, to what degree are they self-aware? I would prefer a strongly self-aware gestalt to a weakly self-aware gestalt. I.e. there would be thought-images in the gestalt that consisted of (in roughly english terms): "I am a gestalt. A coherent bose-einstein condensate of minds of some character or type.".
I guess the reason for the above rambling is that I am assuming that if the gestalt which I desire membership in and of is not something which is explicitly extant on my indranet, then it lies in somewhere in Tumbolia, and I wish to forge a link to bring that gestalt to being extant locally. I do not with to create a religion or any of that crappity nonsense. I think there are some kinds of things that a strongly self-aware gestalt can do that are difficult or impossible for a weakly self-aware gestalt.
For instance, a strongly self-aware gestalt may be more capable of (shore relative to its thotec) of tathatadhyana than a weakly self-aware gestalt. Weakly self-aware gestalts are more likely to apply pranadhyana in their shore relative thotec because their apprehensions may be limited. Some systems of thinking produce more portable and more accurate territory-apprehensivity and territory-sensitivity than others. I think gestalts are mediators. Well. Here's the vague argument: for an individual person, tathatadhyana is extremely difficult, because it requires a considerable quantity of tortuous and difficult nonthinking and relaxation and attentive processes which most of the worldgrind/indranet node-insularity tends to inhibit. So the brief periods of tathatadhyana are mediated by a gestalt (curious that both religion and science have their corresponding bursts of opiates -- both belief and understanding are analgesics, I wonder if their narcotic effect will have them banned?). There have been shades and twitterings of the gestalt that I'd like to be a part of in the here and now, but they're scattered and difficult to put into one place because they do not fit into one place. They're not monistic. What I've seen that's resonated with me has been the bizarre, the out-of-place, the logical fallacies -- i.e. using them as semantic valuations and reasoning warning signs (but not as reasoning anchors), figures of speech (both memetic and sentential), which is to say that the pranadhyana of this gestalt, its internal biology is rife with self-referential and paradoxical objects flying hither and yon: the awareness that it is a gestalt is within it. But this is true in descent as well as globally: this gestalt (not named) has with it several tools not previously available to be applied in the exact way that I'd like them to be applied. Here's a chain of reasoning for you:
I am searching for a gestalt based on an experience I had in a dream. Therefore, I am searching for an existent object of some variety. Therefore, given the definition of existence from dependent origination, and the limited viewpoint I have available to me from my own position in my indranet, as mediated by my local suchness proxies, I should first figure out what kinds of properties I wish this gestalt to have. Regrettably I can't search a directory of gestalts for them. It may even be the case that the gestalt which I eventually decide upon may even eschew being named for the same kinds of representation issue problems which concern me. But that is neither here nor their. So I should gather together a list of properties. And if it eschews being named, then perhaps I don't need to worry about it. I specify the relations which I wish the gestalt to have and then I seek out experiences which resonate with those relations. In this way, I do not need to name the gestalt.
The kind of 'beware, faulty reasoning lies beyond here' signs I wish to post before the Oubliettes of Monism, The Cathedrals of Pure Logic, The Rabidity of Meme Marketeering, The Mindless Audacity of the Genes, The Fetishistic Worship of Science, Radical Objectivism, and so forth. In each of these there are sensible filaments interwoven, so I can't provide a sharp and clear map where the florid and ebullient reasoning lies, and where the disasters lurk. This is kind of a primitive gestalt shopping, at least not in a religious context. I ask of myself: what do I want in a gestalt? And I find that none of the gestalts which surround me have just the right mix of things I want all coalesced together. As per my limitations above I cannot readily find a list of extant gestalts, but I can say some extremely rudimentary things about the ones that occur in this world at the moment. Many are characterized by repetition or reinstantiation of simple, uncomplicated carrier memes and carrier frequencies by people of similar genetic clades. While these may have similar, homomorphic, or isomorphic divinity code when considered holotomically, in their lower level code, there is much strife: lower order code comparisons bring about war, violence, and idiocy for the stupidest of reasons (not passing a clade membership test is enough to warrant death in some cases).
Fantasy: imagine a functor that images the spaces which gestalts occupy to people or humanoid schizotomes/representations. And an inclusion that would allow me to examine each from the outside, as a whole. How would that work out? It's an idle fantasy of someone who wants to have more information about a belief system that they're searching/shopping for. How would each of these gestalts rate on a self-awareness test. Would they even be conscious of themselves as gestalts? Or would they be frogs or butterflies or donkeys or bacteria? Again, since the gestalt holotome is not in my sensorium as the smell of geranium oil or the taste of milk is, I cannot answer this question directly. I think I would prefer a gestalt that was in fact, self-aware, rather to one that wasn't. And if all gestalts are self-aware, to what degree are they self-aware? I would prefer a strongly self-aware gestalt to a weakly self-aware gestalt. I.e. there would be thought-images in the gestalt that consisted of (in roughly english terms): "I am a gestalt. A coherent bose-einstein condensate of minds of some character or type.".
I guess the reason for the above rambling is that I am assuming that if the gestalt which I desire membership in and of is not something which is explicitly extant on my indranet, then it lies in somewhere in Tumbolia, and I wish to forge a link to bring that gestalt to being extant locally. I do not with to create a religion or any of that crappity nonsense. I think there are some kinds of things that a strongly self-aware gestalt can do that are difficult or impossible for a weakly self-aware gestalt.
For instance, a strongly self-aware gestalt may be more capable of (shore relative to its thotec) of tathatadhyana than a weakly self-aware gestalt. Weakly self-aware gestalts are more likely to apply pranadhyana in their shore relative thotec because their apprehensions may be limited. Some systems of thinking produce more portable and more accurate territory-apprehensivity and territory-sensitivity than others. I think gestalts are mediators. Well. Here's the vague argument: for an individual person, tathatadhyana is extremely difficult, because it requires a considerable quantity of tortuous and difficult nonthinking and relaxation and attentive processes which most of the worldgrind/indranet node-insularity tends to inhibit. So the brief periods of tathatadhyana are mediated by a gestalt (curious that both religion and science have their corresponding bursts of opiates -- both belief and understanding are analgesics, I wonder if their narcotic effect will have them banned?). There have been shades and twitterings of the gestalt that I'd like to be a part of in the here and now, but they're scattered and difficult to put into one place because they do not fit into one place. They're not monistic. What I've seen that's resonated with me has been the bizarre, the out-of-place, the logical fallacies -- i.e. using them as semantic valuations and reasoning warning signs (but not as reasoning anchors), figures of speech (both memetic and sentential), which is to say that the pranadhyana of this gestalt, its internal biology is rife with self-referential and paradoxical objects flying hither and yon: the awareness that it is a gestalt is within it. But this is true in descent as well as globally: this gestalt (not named) has with it several tools not previously available to be applied in the exact way that I'd like them to be applied. Here's a chain of reasoning for you:
I am searching for a gestalt based on an experience I had in a dream. Therefore, I am searching for an existent object of some variety. Therefore, given the definition of existence from dependent origination, and the limited viewpoint I have available to me from my own position in my indranet, as mediated by my local suchness proxies, I should first figure out what kinds of properties I wish this gestalt to have. Regrettably I can't search a directory of gestalts for them. It may even be the case that the gestalt which I eventually decide upon may even eschew being named for the same kinds of representation issue problems which concern me. But that is neither here nor their. So I should gather together a list of properties. And if it eschews being named, then perhaps I don't need to worry about it. I specify the relations which I wish the gestalt to have and then I seek out experiences which resonate with those relations. In this way, I do not need to name the gestalt.
No comments:
Post a Comment