« Home | Pushing the Pause Button Briefly » | Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed » | The System State at an 'is' Decision Point » | The Power of Uncertainty » | The Selfish Gene - Modifying Theories » | The Mexican-Iraq Border » | Sharing the Beauty » | Space Messages and Double Entendres (vers.2) » | Prescience, Premonition and Entropy » | Of Mirrors, Randomness, Balance and Infinity »

In Response Part 1 - DJB

Introduction by George Orwell:

"To write or even speak English is not a science but an art. There are no reliable words. Whoever writes in English is involved in a struggle that never lets up even for a sentence. He is struggling against vagueness, against obscurity, against the lure of the decorative adjective, against the encroachment of Latin and Greek, and, above all, against the worn-out phrases and dead metaphors with which the language is cluttered up."

In Response Part 2 - Soulless
In Response Part 3 - Dave
In Response Part 4 - Gary
String Bead Analogy
Global Bill of Rights
Letter Shapes and 'is' Systems

(Note 1: those three responses and three references will be linked to up-coming blogs when they get written. Just 'book-marking' thm [not a typo] now!)

(Note 2: I alluded in my last post that three e-mails I received of appended comments didn't show up as comments. Turns out that all of them were for the blog from two days previously, "The Power of Uncertainty". Perhaps an appropriate title for the situation!)

(Note 3: In this entry, I have now used the pattern 'three', three times prior to this note three, which now cubes it: 'three' times three = Note 3:) :0 :)

I want to devote this entry, and the next three, to replying to the comments I've received in the past few days, because they trigger some points I'd like to expand upon.

In responding to the blog titled "Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed":





At 12:14 PM, DaddyJarBucks said...
Answer is 1 b. But I don't always comment, I check. It all depends on the mood, I'm in. Which right at this week is not good.


DJB, thanks, as always for your continued support and encouragement. You're the first on-line person I ever "spoke" with by leaving a comment at your site, when I tentatively started poking around in the world of blogs when Dave got me interested back in January. I don't know you in person, but through your site I've gotten to "know" you and a bunch of wonderful people. Important as that is to me, it was also your site that introduced me to fractals, which prompted Gary to ask me about Mandlebrot, which got me interested in Chaos Theory, which caused me to write a note to the wonderful artist who used to supply my little greeting card distribution business with cards to see if she might be interested in me doing some facings for her, which prompted her to tell me about the link with Chaos Theory and James Glieck's book that she had read and recommended, which prompted me to buy it and read it, which allowed me to do quantum leaps in filling a whole lot of "question mark" gaps in 'is', which......[you get the picture, I hope!].

If I hadn't tripped across your site that day, if I didn't have bipolarism, if you didn't have bipolrism [not a typo], if I didn't do a blog search for others with biploarism [not a typo], if you hadn't created a blog, if you didn't make reference to your bipolarism in your blog, if you weren't interested in fractals, if you weren't interested in photography, if John hadn't gotten you interested in fractals....... [you get the picture, I hope! Both ends to the middle. Mirror image. ]

Everything is related. Your publication of a single fractal has created waves in a house in Edmonton that are wonderfully time-consuming as I write more and more, and fine tune the understanding that I am evolving in my own head about 'is'. An early chapter in the Chaos book is called the "Butterfly Effect". It explores the possibilities of a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo having an effect on the weather sytem in England. It's all connected at some level. I think I've just demonstrated that!

So, you may say that you don't follow or understand it much, but you try, and I surely appreciate that. What's more significant to me is the critical role you played in getting my thoughts connected from "fractal" to "New Science: Chaos Theory" to 'is' Theory. What I'm saying is "You've contributed more than comments already". I don't give a three-way-hooey if you end up understanding it the same way that I do; my ultimate goal 'is' that there be universal tolerance of understanding at some level in such a way that the five basic tenets are truisms.

I could stop that sentence there, such that the sceptics in the crowd are already saying, "Aha! It's not a theory after all, it's just his goal", or "He's got no proof, so it must be invalid!", and leave the thought completion dangling, and me dangling with the Hurculean task of coming up with a proof for existence, god and things major and minor from that. Tough assignment! [It's intersting, isn't it, that a cynic would be comfortable with the logic and conclusion "He's got no proof, so it must be invalid!", but they're not at all comfortable with "He's got no proof, so it's probably valid", or "He's got no proof, so it has an outside chance of maybe eventually being valid" or any other of the infinite possible shades of "so" that could be extracted from "He's got no proof". Yet, there is a catalog of historical prrofs [not a typo] which turned out not to be the proofs the cynic sought as a condition of original acceptance.]


......or I could complete it with a choice-selection list, as follows:

...."in such a way that the five basic tenets are truisms {for me, for you, for the universe, for whoever wants to try it on for size, for whoever is helped by this way of thinking, for inventing a breakthrough new problem-solving methodology.....}."

I simply started out at the unorthodox end of things. Instead of saying "Let's assume there is a universal pattern representing a working set of rules which will, all things being equal, maintain a state of perpetual balance in the universe [ which, by the way, would most likely be a state of stagnation, leading to decay, rot and disintegration]", .....and then devise some experiment which demonstrates the assumption to hold true and to be replicable by others who want to see it for themselves: (replicable: give birth to itself, actively or passively). In other words, out [not a typo; could have been 'put', 'output' or 'put out'] my theory through the rigours of the genrally[sic] accepted scientific method 19 times out of 20 (see "thalidomide; post-it notes").

I could have taken the scientific method of postulating my premises, developing a rigorous experiment to demonstarte my postulates to be true and replicable, document them in a recognized journal which has the effect of it becoming a "given" for subsequent research and experiments, thereby becoming 'expert' knowledge at a 'mastery' level.....until someone else finds an experiemnt which no longer fits....and so knowledge is born...giving birth to itself once again.

I could have, but I didn't. I walked down to the other end of the string. I started with the mirror image and asked "What am I reflecting?".

I started my thery, not with postulates of where it would eventually end up. I statred where it would end eventually end up and am working backwards from there. Where is there?

is
.

[Note: that 'is' a hyperlink]

[Note: the spelling errors you find in this post were not made intentionally (as in 'consciously'); but they were not corrected consciously, because the errors in the spelling add on an information value to the letter space containing the 'error' which would be lost if the words were spelld correctly. I am both amused and curious that the words that get spelled incorrectly when my fingers hit keys on the keyboard under guidance from my brain directing {finger movement, eye-hand co-ordination, recollection of spelling classes from the early 1950's ....}, all come together, in conjunction with the relative placement of the various letter-keys on the keyboard to allow these errors to happen when they do to make the information points they make. It is highly unlikely that I would hit an 's' mistakenly for an 'o', since they don't lie close to each other on the keyboard, unless they lie close to each other within the word or thought I'm constructing, then time sequence could flutter, rather than space sequence. Or both.

These errors are giving birth to themselves, creating themselves, in the sense that I'm not doing it consciously. Oh sure, I am absolutely the tool of their creation, but not their mind. I'm not their essence. Is this an illustration of a concept having a mind of its own? Is it like a parasite being comfortably hosted in my brain? Perhaps a 'concept' is a totally separate concept from the concept we have of our brains. If that were not the case, why would anyone ever make an error of any kind? Why not just do it right, and not have to proofread, have editors, and multiple versions of Windows. Version 2.1.?

Because there is one of each. Oneness. Uniqueness. Everything. Everything is. 'is'.

[The last [paragraph] is included to both explain the grammar and spellinng errors included in this post, sice they often 'annoy' the language perfectionist (i.e. 'cause a level of noise or perturbation loud enough to draw one's attention'), whereas some you don't notice, and others you notice but ignore. It depends on your threshold. The measure of agitation (notice) is a measure of the entrpy of the spelling error. (compare Shakespeare, The Illiad and txt msg).

_________________________________________________________

Bonus question, for the game-players in the crowd: Respond to at least one of the following:

a) Identify as many examples of bracketing as you can find in this entire blog entry (hint: orthodox/unorthodox = Goerge Orwell).
b) How many different forms of bracketing can you find in this entire blog entry?

_________________________________________________________

"The sound shivers through the walls, through the table, through the window frame, and into my finger. These distraction-oholics. These focus-ophobics. Old George Orwell got it backward. Big Brother isn't watching. He's singing and dancing. He's pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother's holding your attention every moment you're awake. He's making sure you're always distracted. He's making sure you're fully absorbed... and this being fed, it's worse than being watched. With the world always filling you, no one has to worry about what's in your mind. With everyone's imagination atrophied, no one will ever be a threat to the world." - Chuck Palahniuk

PEACE.



...and because of that fractal causing waves in that house in Edmonton, I got to meet a terrific person & my son got a bike!!!!
All because of you Daddy:)

Mackeydoodle: That is one of the best examples of 'is' in action that I've seen yet! Thank you for that....I believe you've got it!!

(Of course, that could also be read as ....'one of the best examples of 'is' inaction that I've seen yet.... which of course, is it's own opposite!)

So it was I who got you interested in chaos theory, eh?

...and the butterfly keeps flapping his wings, stronger and stronger, linking more things to EVERYTHING.

EVERYTHING.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link


  • I'm Evydense
  • From Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • And I'm tired of living in the shadow of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. So here's the fax, Jack! "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred and sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." - Lynne Lavner*** I'm confused; curious; satisfied; realistically resigned to being a frustrated idealist; usually at peace with myself, but not always. Amazed at how little I know, and wondering how much I need to understand.
More of Me