« Home | 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 » | The Elusive Grail Quest; Truth? Purpose? Other? » | Thought Thinking; or, Recursion I Think » | There was Method to the Rabid Rabbit Rant »

The System State at an 'is' Decision Point

Introduced by "The Quotes"

"I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's." - William Blake

"The problem is that no ethical system has ever achieved consensus. Ethical systems are completely unlike mathematics or science. This is a source of concern." - Daniel Dennett

"If you believe that feeling bad or worrying long enough will change a past or future event, then you are residing on another planet with a different reality system." - William James

"My doctrine is not a doctrine but just a vision. I have not given you any set of rules, I have not given you a system." - Buddha

(NOTE: This entry is a bit more on the theoretical side of 'is', but a necessary step in order to carry on with the next ones.)

As a frame of reference for today's discussion, I'd like to refer to the concept of the broken circle again, how it was formed and what it means within the context of 'is'.

As with everything in 'is', we start with a SEED, and allow it to undergo its initial characterstic actions of a) SELF-GENERATION, and b) original BINARY-CHOICE. So, for purposes of illustration, let's assume we are looking at the SEED for 'altruism' (the act of doing good for others often at personal expense). Before the act of SELF-GENERATION, we have a dormant, self-contained, self-containing, HOLOGRAPHIC SEED. With some jolt of activation, such as {need, desire, external spark, application, purpose,...} which serves to overcome the THRESHOLD of inactivity of the ALTRUISM-SEED, the SEED {bifurcates, splits in two, undergoes mitosis, gives birth to itself,...} and forms a line, instantly and immediately consisting of two dots (ALTRUISM and NOT-ALTRUISM....[by Tenet #5, every entity upon its self-birth, creates its own MIRROR version of either opposite, inversion or clone]), and simultaneously also separates those two dots from each other, also according to Tenet #5, at the extreme ends of an infinitely long line, where all other dots on the line are varying degrees of {ALTRUISM...NOT-ALTRUISM}, arranged in sequence relative to each other, like the shades and gradations of colour on a rainbow.


It is at this point that we have reached the first SYSTEM-STATE of an 'is' system, the straight line [equivalent to Level(3) of the B.A.T. system --- the Social Strata Level --- if you're comparing the two parts of the theory]. As with the Laws of Science, any 'is'-STATE will tend to continue to remain in its CURRENT-STATE unless acted upon in such a way as to activate it to move to a HIGHER or LOWER 'is'-STATE, by overcoming the necessary resistance of THRESHOLD between STATES.

In the first SYSTEM-STATE, three major components are associated with it.

1) Current simultaneous content. Every dot on this line exists in an ordered sequence in the current 'is'-MOMENT. Ideally (i.e. in the idealistic model of 'is'), the current 'is'-MOMENT has no dimension, it merely serves to separate PAST from FUTURE, but typically we assign a width value to CURRENT-MOMENT, and speak of it in terms of measurements such as {picosecond, hour, day, millenia, ...}. The wider the value of CURRENT-MOMENT, the more noise there is in the THRESHOLD, and the more difficult it becomes to 'bend' the straight line into a curved one (which will move us towards {a closed system, resolution, growth, discovery,...}).

2) Direction. Since there is a contiguous row of adjacent dots within the line, movement can flow from one end of the line to the other, or reverse and flow the other way (MIRROR-FLOW). Every dot offers a dot on either side of it, except the two end dots, representing ALTRUISM and NOT-ALTRUISM as pure opposites (MIRROR-OPPOSITES), which only have one adjacent point each in this first SYSTEM-STATE.

3) Choice. Each point contains a decision-maker such that the default decision-maker can be in charge (operating under a set of rules that are inherent to the entity), or it can be overridden by what I'll call the free-will decision-maker, which has a three-way decision to make. It can decide to a) travel the DIRECTION-SYSTEM line {left, right, stay, jump 3 dots to the left, turn around,...} or b) explore unmapped territory {move to close a new system, bend the line, learn something new, extrapolate, cross to the FUTURE...} or c) explore known territory {re-enter an existing closed system, review, interpolate, expand upon, explain, interpret, cross to the PAST....}


The OPEN-SYSTEM-STATE is the next strata in the hierarchy of STATE-EVOLUTION. It is a STATE in which a decision-point on the straight line of the DIRECTIONAL-STATE has made a BINARY-CHOICE of either b) or c) from above: to explore unmapped territory, or explore known territory, in either case, to leave the straight line of the first SYSTEM-STATE, and in doing so has created a bent or curved line out of the straight one. In other words, an attempt has been made to bring the two opposite ends {ALTRUISM...NOT-ALTRUISM} together. The distance between them is not as great as it used to be as a result of bending the line. If a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, and I bend that line in at some point, then the two ends are now closer together than they were.

Let me try to illustrate that a different way. Take a long piece of bendable wire like a coat hanger, straighten it out and lay it on a table in front of you. Measure the distance between its two ends... say it's 2 feet. Now, pick it up and put a 60-degree bend in it approximately at the mid-point (the 'is'-POINT that has chosen to make a decision to override the default decision, which was to 'keep me in my current straight-line state'). Measure the distance between the two ends again. The shortest distance between the ends now (across the open space between them) is approximately one foot, and the wire now roughly approximates two sides of an equilateral triangle [more on this shape in a blog coming to your neighbourhood soon!..stay tuned!]. None of the wire has disappeared. It's just re-arranged itself to make it easier for ALTRUISM to shake hands with NOT-ALTRUISM.

The new distance between the ends is called 'is' (now shorter because of the bend), but as long as the 'is'-MOMENT dot of choice still lies on the original line segment, 'is' remains but a label. It has no operational value yet.

This second SYSTEM-STATE (OPEN) corresponds to Level(2) - the Belief Structure in BAT.
It's a shape you have selected to draw your personal lines with (the belief statements you pulled out of the collective pile to apply to yourself), but they are subject to change (the wire can be bent) with sufficient internal or external force being applied, realigning them in view of new thoughts, etc.


This SYSTEM-STATE is a combination of the first two. The goal of an OPEN SYSTEM-STATE should bring the opposing ends as close together as possible (thus minimizing the {chaos, turbulence, misunderstanding, width, THRESHOLD, ....} between the two diametrically-opposite ends of the same issue, thus forming our 'broken circle' analogy. Like mortar between bricks in a house, add 'is' to join the two ends with a DIRECTION SYSTEM-STATE straight line, drawn from the first state. Again, the distance between two dots is a straight line. We already have the dots connected by a second SYSTEM-STATE curved line, a line of faith, BAT-Level(2), consisting of all values that could possibly lie between the two extremes, ordered in sequence, and we can pick our individual point on this continuum that corresponds most closely to our own position.

Our position will be closer to one end rather than the other, but there is still {noise, conflict, unresloved solution, problem, THRESHOLD,...} between our CURRENT-SPOT and the END-SPOT closest to us. There is even further, perhaps insurmountable, noise between our spot and the end that we are furthest from, because in addition to overcoming the noise between our spot and the one we are closest to, we then additionally must traverse the synaptic jump between ALTRUISM and NOT-ALTRUISM covered by 'is'. This increases the THRESHOLD, making it a harder 'leap of faith' to accomplish. You can't jump a 20 foot chasm with two, 10-foot hops. It's all or nothing. It's a binary choice. The closest you can get is to approach as nearly as possible to the end of the {ALTRUISM...NOT-ALTRUISM} line, and minimize the length of the 'is' line, thereby minimizing the threshold, and minimizing the length of the jump. You need to work both ends towards the middle simultaneously.

Ironically, this is suggesting that the more intransigent (less-compromising) you become on the original directional stand you take, the easier it will be for you to reconcile with the opposite point of view. The goal is not to get you to jump the gap to be on the other side; the goal is for you to be the gap, be the link between {ALTRUISM...NOT-ALTRUISM}, or {NOT-ALTRUISM...ALTRUISM}, be 'is'. The answer to Shakespeare's famous question is "to be". 'is'.
This SYSTEM-STATE corresponds to Level(1) of BAT, namely the moral, ethical level. The level at which lines are drawn virtually intransigently, and are difficult to draw, because they are seen as being complete, although imperfect. You have positioned yourself 'without judgement' between the two extreme positions, and now can objectively evaluate any entity from this unbiased point of view, thus putting you in a position capable of judgement. Again, a seeming irony. To reach this gap, you must not judge, but once having reached it, you are capable of judgement. The problem, although smaller, still lies in the fact that the 'is' line which you have adopted (subsuming or encapsulating {ALTRUISM...NOT-ALTRUISM} into the 'is'-DOT, and the line which now defines you as part of your morals and principles, making them a subset of your instinctive, or default behaviour set, is that there is still some 'length' to this 'is' line. There is still some room for error in judgment, although hopefully quite small.

Summarizing, if we are looking for resolution, we must first move to the END-SPOT closest to us, or there will never be resolution. All intermediate positions on a direction-line are of no value, inasmuch as they are compromises at best, and incomplete at worst. You may need to remain on the CURRENT-LEVEL resolving DIRECTION problems first, before you can begin to even address higher level problems. So let's assume you've found yourself at one end of the issue of ALTRUISM or the other, it is totally irrelevant which end you're at, because we are now going to join the two ends with a straight line 'is', thus closing the system (part of which will be bounded by the {bent, curved, resolved,...} partial solution represented by the wire, which you are currently satisfied with (having found your way to one end or the other), and the rest of the solution, not yet resolved, bounded by the {imaginary, not-real, as-yet-undiscovered...} portion of the solution 'is'. If the wire represents the 'real' part of a mathematical equation, and 'is' represents the 'imaginary' part, we then have a mathematical formulation, consistent with Chaos Theory, for a complex number, with both a linear and non-linear (real and complex) component.

They are the same things. My theory does not lie outside the realm of mathematical rigour, if that is the area you are so inclined to take it, as I will from time to time. [more on this later, also!]


This state, corresponds to Level(0) of BAT, and is the base level of all SYSTEMS. It is the pure form of 'is'. It is the state of perfect balance, proper existence, error-free judgement. I suggested that in BAT, it consists of the single characteristic TOLERANCE. That word has an English meaning, and you may not like the English meaning being used in this context. So let's define it as an 'is'-WORD instead. First it will be devoid of judgement and context unless specified.

Within 'is', TOLERANCE means the 'is'-DOT that separates {ENTITY...NOT-ENTITY} in order to form a CLOSED-COMPLETE SYSTEM. In other words, it is the characteristic that makes any ENTITY equivalent to its NOT-ENTITY. The only difference between them is the CHOICE associated with them. In 'is', our normal CHOICE is to choose between SOMETHING and EVERYTHING-ELSE. TOLERANCE lets us limit EVERYTHING-ELSE to NOT-SOMETHING, making it a more precise and limiting option.

To restate, we move from the generic 'is'-CHOICE of {SOMETHING...EVERYTHING-ELSE}
to the 'is'-CHOICE of {SOMETHING...NOT-SOMETHING}. In the first case, we have isolated one thing out of a selection of an infinite number of things. In the second case we have isolated one thing and its specific mirror opposite.

Put in NOT-'is' example terms, I could hire a NOT-BLACK person for a job based on BEST-MATCHED-TO-SKILL-BEING-SOUGHT, rather than on NEEDED-TO-MEET-ETHNIC-QUOTA, without any judgement, opinion, bias or prejudice as to skin clour or ethnicity being a factor in the process, and without any consequence or fallout from such a decision.

Following from that, the smaller the 'is'-TOLERANCE dot is, the higher the degree of compatibility or resolution between the ENTITY and its opposite. Further, according to Tenet #5, an ENTITY can express it's MIRROR as any one of the three variants; its inverse, clone or opposite. Therefore, we could say that a small (single) 'is'-TOLERANCE dot represents its clone (with only a single, minute, unique difference), a large (straight-line) 'is'-TOLERANCE dot represents its opposite with every point being a point of unique difference (the straight line being a first SYSTEM-STATE DIRECTIONAL state), and the length of the line being a measure of its inversion (the longer the line, the more inverted its MIRROR version is; the shorter, the more alike). If the 'is'-TOLERANCE dot is the same length as the {ENTITY...NOT-ENTITY} line, then the 'is'-MIRROR image is the exact opposite (NOT-ENTITY...ENTITY}.

The final special case would be if no 'is'-DOT existed in the gap of the broken circle, which would mean the {ENTITY} end dot would correspond exactly with the {NOT-ENTITY} end dot. This would represent the case where there is no noise at all between the two extremes, the threshold has been completely crossed, the issue is totally resolved, each has become a total part of each other (which is consistent with Tenet #5...a SEED contains itself and its opposite), and the whole CLOSED-COMPLETE SYSTEM reduces down to a CLOSED-PERFECT SYSTEM. A dot. A seed. A fractal. A beginning. In BAT, instead of having Level(0), you'd have Level(.). There is no longer a need for TOLERANCE to allow the co-existence of contrainess without friction or threshold. CURRENT-MOMENT can disappear completely, and still maintain PAST as being totally separate from FUTURE. (THis makes an interesting argument for the non-existence of 'time' as we have traditionally defined it; we merely have memories representing the past, and dreams or predictions representing the future! I addressed this concept some time ago in this blog and this one).

"I've learned that fame is written in ice, and eventually the sun will come out." - Age 57

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