Sunday, October 22, 2006

underbellies of s-machines

N. Staunser Stoggland says: "My programme of logic and reason will be the most enlightened and sensible plan! Everyone will learn logic and precise reasoning at the age of two. I will produce the perfect thinker. The exact model of bethinkitude."

Stoggland may seem to be wise, but he's not. He thinks that the production of nations of identical thinkers with raw intelligence will solve many problems, but it won't: lack of diversity in the mind pool invariably creates or induces large sensory or semantic lacunae which are not simply invisible, but are pointedly and starkly invisible to the masses of patterned thinkers. There are some things/phenomena for which perception by and in one of a given group of people requires a diversity of minds. Ramping up my terminology for a moment: there are some things which are visible to individuals and not to gestalts. The given gestalt ends up having this kind of internal supermap which contrary sensory data gets flushed out by a mid-level code comparison utility, and of course eddies are left over which are not resolved in the context of the canonicity of the gestalt. The gestalt and a given gestalt element/cell/person have a relationship. Seas of identical code runs don't tell you anything individually: either you are at a person level having a discussion and the code-ironing/instances will be important: you're going to be and going to be concerned with schizotomes. Or you're the gestalt itself and the functionings of your cells are going to generally be invisible to you. But you can't, at least in the local embedding context, rapidly shift from being a person to being a gestalt and vice versa.


Now, the above mess is high-falutin' noise. What I distill from it is twofold: if you are at a context which embeds both the post-onctopoate for both gestalts and people, well, never mind. I can't talk about there easily. If you are a person, then please don't make gestalt fealty something you lose sleep over: it will tear you apart/create much internal noise/etc. Also, realize that you do have a choice: "once a Blospasian, always a Blospasian" is name oriented and not data/experience oriented. Are you the code you run? If you are the code you run before you are flexible, then you are slaved to it and its surrounding nonsensica. If the code you run is something which is flexible for you: can you decide what to do and how to do it, then you can make personal philanthropic (and philogestaltic) decisions about how you want to sway your thinking. Everyone else is always eager to run their code on you, and low level code is particularly vicious about its own survival -- particularly gestalt schizotome code that does gatekeeping. The higher order code is more similar, more connected by holotome, but less available because it doesn't have the vicious qualities of the survival oriented stuff.

No comments: