Patterns within thought

[emile]

carol, your first paragraph on the ‘projecting of a part of our being-ness outside of the self-organizing dynamic’ does indeed reflect the view i have been trying to share.

and these objectified phantom beings are managed in our heads using language, visual perception and general agreement, ... however, this is where this object-based game-playing is exposed to dysfunction since we have synthetically made all of these phantom beings we have broken out of the holodynamic, we are now obliged to ascribe a ‘life’ to each of them and we do this by personifying them in terms of ‘what they do’, the actions they have themselves authored (e.g. ‘the hurricane moved into the coastal area near gulfport, mississippi causing widespread destruction’). this language and visual perception supported imagery of ‘independence’ and ‘causal agency’ has us thinking in pure yang terms wherein we develop 'amnesia' as to the accommodative quality of the hostspace that the ‘independent causal agent’ is included in, that co-defines the actualizing of the assertive potentials. the rest of the airspace that is (a) being pushed aside (b) opening up to accommodate (a) the forward movement of the hurricane (b) the transformation of airspace that re-spatially-situates the eye of the spiralling flow-feature..... was in reality not detachable from the spiralling flow-feature, the two are included within a common spatial holodynamic.

the phantom being we have projected out from the holodynamical flowspace, the ‘independent causal agent’ is now seen as the independent author of its own behaviour, thus we can ‘blame it’ IN ITSELF for ‘what it does’ in a good or bad sense.

the classic case of culturally-imposed objectification in our global social history is the ‘Declaration of Independence’ of the United States. there is the option to see the United States’ ‘achievements’ in terms of independent causal authoring. in this view, the actualization-of-assertive-potential shaping influence of the accommodative quality of the global hostspace dynamic is not accounted for. this can rub two ways; i.e. it can make the US look very ‘good’, like a high-achiever-in-its-own-right, ... and it can make the US look very ‘bad’, like a ruthless-assassin-in-its-own-right. so long as we visualize the US as the ‘independent’ author of its own actions, there is no way to resolve this paradox. of course, if we remember that the US is just an objectification we have imposed on an intrinsically non-divisible global holodynamic, the ‘causality’ reverts to ‘self-organization’ on the part of the global hostspace and the spokespersons for ‘the US’ and for ‘the rest of the world’ (intrinsic brothers as in the native 'mitakuye oyasin') have to jointly say’ ‘we have got something good going on over here’ or ‘we have got something nasty and dissonant going on over here. but in order to acknowledge our shared destiny within a holodynamical space, we have to forego the pride of saying ‘i am better than you’. ‘i have achieved what i have achieved entirely on my own’, ... ‘i have been a success and you all are failures and are jealous of my success’. etc. etc. again, the old native elder on turtle island who never has believed in the colonial absolutenesses of imaginary-line bounded ‘property’ or the declared ‘independence’ of a nation within an obviously and intrinsically interconnected common livingspace, ... will simply say, ... there go those european colonial nutcase squatters with their language games again.

the declaration of independence of an innately interdependent subtotality such as the US opens the door to questions about the independence of its internal part(icipant)s. in the declaration of independence, it also says that ‘all men [and women] are born equal’ as well as that all men [and women] have the right to freedom [post-slavery]. it has been much debated, and continues to be, in the US, what is meant by ‘equal’ and how does it jibe with ‘freedom’? the notion of independence is invoked again and thus the administration of ‘equality’ is on the basis of ‘what the individual does’, rather than ‘equality of opportunity’ (an illusion to the gone-missing accommodative quality of space that mutually defines the actualizing of assertive potentials). without the inclusion of space in the administrative/regulatory systems architected to protect the right of equality and freedom, and being able to focus only on ‘the causal actions of the independent part(icipant)s’, the regulations become punitive (based on not-doing) with the same punishment for ‘stealing an apple’ if an individual is homeless/propertyless or if an individual has an orchard of 1000 acres of apple-trees. these individuals are treated as ‘equals’ in the eyes of the law in the sense of 'what they do'. i am not getting political here, just giving an observation on the fallout of objectification that yields an 'independent' nation and its 'independent' parts, ... er, ... people.

since objectification purges the ‘in-the-reality-of-our-experience’ OVER-RIDING role of the common livingspace dynamic in shaping the actualizing of our assertive potentials,... all we have left to ‘model with’ is a bunch of ‘independent assertive/causal agents’ whom we profile and assess on the basis of ‘what they do’ (the ‘resumé’ thing), as if the good they achieve and the bad they perpetrate is sole-authored by themselves, as in the case of the US. in this objectified western view, reward, respect, advancement, empowerment etc. (and the associated negative qualities) are allocated on this synthetic one-sided ‘independent causal agent’ basis.

this space-purging, resumé orienting language game sets us up for ‘darwin’s theory of evolution’. that is, having gotten rid of the shaping influence of an accommodating/suppressing hostspace dynamic, we are set to develop a model for evolution in terms of a purely yang collection of assertive agents with diverse ‘resumés’ inventorying 'assertive accomplishments' that document their ‘fitness’. once we have built the language game to this level of misleading sophistry, it is not hard to go the next step and say that those independent causal agents ‘that are most fit’ are the most likely to survive, reproduce and prosper. such is the objectification-based doctrine of ‘darwinian evolution’ an absolutist religious-philosophy that can be applied to any dynamical collective, and which justifies the rewarding, respecting, advancement, empowerment of ‘the most fit’ on the basis that it ‘is nature’s way’. of course this is rubbish, but neo-darwinism continues to be the mainstay of our western-culture dominated global livingspace social-dynamic. as a religious commentator, phillip johnson, says of the supposedly ‘scientific/non-religious’ neo-darwinism;

"Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It's the officially sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the priesthood...So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that authority--that's why they're so vicious towards critics."
--Phillip Johnson, on the PBS television documentary "In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy" (May 30-31, 1995)

while creationists have been the most vocal challengers of neo-darwinism, the intelligent design faction (phillip johnson, see http://www.probe.org/docs/philjohn.html ) has also had an impact, while those coming from the inclusional view (similar to what i have been sharing) are also viewed as dangerous heretics, and a friend who was a tenured biology professor at the university of saskatchewan was fired last year for refusing to back off his view that darwinian natural selection was ‘superstition’ (douglas e. caldwell, ‘Post-modern ecology --- is the environment the organism?’, Environmental Microbiology, Aug. 1999).

so, i’m affirming that what you are ‘reflecting back’ captures what i am trying to share, ... and just wanted to add that while our language game-play makes these phantom-being based objectified models ‘kind of work’, even with the role of space missing, we have ‘downsized’ the meaning of harmony and dissonance within a common hostspace to ‘good behaviour’ and ‘bad behaviour’ on the ‘part’ of the ‘part(icipant)s’ and set up this model of competition based on ‘doing better than the other guy’ which becomes the basis for reward, recognition (celebrity/hero status), respect, advancement, empowerment and of course phony resumés that say ‘i did it my way’, ...and, ... ‘the autobiography of a self-made man/nation’ etc. but when the radius of the encircling kingdom walls of one’s expanding influence spread out over the surface hostspace on a sphere, two circular areas are defined at the same time, and while one expands the other shrinks to the point that what used to be called ‘the wilderness’ or the ‘space of others’ beyond the kindgom walls ends up enclosing the ‘creatures and beings of the wilderness’ within a circular playpen in the middle of the now-globally-grown kingdom, a virtual enslavement situation that can engender great humiliation and resentment., the flip-side of the imperial hubris, the product of objectifying holodynamical flow-features as independent phantom-beings and embodying them in our western language mind-games (that radically differ from our felt experiencing in the space of now)..

[Carol Massey]

[emile:] "so, i’m affirming that what you are ‘reflecting back’ captures what i am trying to share, ... and just wanted to add that while our language game-play makes these phantom-being based objectified models ‘kind of work’, even with the role of space missing, we have ‘downsized’ the meaning of harmony and dissonance within a common hostspace to ‘good behaviour’ and ‘bad behaviour’ on the ‘part’ of the ‘part(icipant)s’ and set up this model of competition based on ‘doing better than the other guy’ which becomes the basis for reward, recognition (celebrity/hero status), respect, advancement, empowerment and of course phony resumés that say ‘i did it my way’, ...and, ... ‘the autobiography of a self-made man/nation’ etc. but when the radius of the encircling kingdom walls of one’s expanding influence spread out over the surface hostspace on a sphere, two circular areas are defined at the same time, and while one expands the other shrinks to the point that what used to be called ‘the wilderness’ or the ‘space of others’ beyond the kindgom walls ends up enclosing the ‘creatures and beings of the wilderness’ within a circular playpen in the middle of the now-globally-grown kingdom, a virtual enslavement situation that can engender great humiliation and resentment., the flip-side of the imperial hubris, the product of objectifying holodynamical flow-features as independent phantom-beings and embodying them in our western language mind-games (that radically differ from our felt experiencing in the space of now).."

Daniel Quinn describes this in an insightful way too, saying that we humans, who are now living atop the foodchain, compares our precarious position to living in a penthouse whose foundation is the rest of natural world, and as we deplete our resources, we begin chipping away at the infrastructure (our reciprocal living hostspace?) to satisfy our (mis)perceived needs ...and as we continue to live and think in this way, we are simply converting the planet into our own biomass, (with the consequent destruction of other living species of plant and animal life with which we share a symbiotic relationship), resulting in a corresponding extinction of up to 400 species a day. I have a pop and land clock on my desktop which records the alarming planetary loss of 2.2 hectores of arable land every 7 seconds, and a net increase in population of 3 births every 5 seconds (I may be off by a second or two as I'm not referring to it while writing this).

Again, with appreciation, thank you emile for making the complex understandable, (given ample time for absorption by me).

Apologies for writing this post without a lot of time for conscious reflection, but I wanted to capture a few thoughts about it while they were present.

[Carol Massey]

Hi emile,

I've been thinking about the information you have been sharing with me...and it really makes 'sense'. Yes, the darwinism, the hostspace, the accomodative, assertive functions, the whole of it...makes much sense.

An interesting thing happened to me recently. I was hesitant to share it (probably for fear of sounding very 'odd'), but it fits so perfectly what you are telling me I decided, what the heck, I'll share it anyway.

For many years, more than I can recall, I have had what has seemed an inner guiding voice that I'm certain is always there, and at times, it is very audible for extended periods. Well, such has been the past couple of months, though now it seems to be in a waning phase, and I don't hear it quite as loudly and clearly as in the past few weeks...but recently I found that I was thinking a lot about my mother, who, other than as my mother, I know nothing of her personal background or relatives. She died in '93, and if there was one thing about our relationship that I regret, it was that I know next to nothing about her past, IOW, she had no history (for me), and I know none of her relatives, not even their names (except for the aunt that raised her from birth and is now dead)...anyway...the strangeness of this has always been bothersome to me, so recently as I sat pondering this missing link in my personal past for some time...then I let the thoughts about it go, and thought, it's okay, I'm here now, I'm fine, and she was a wonderful mother to me. It seemed that was all I really needed to know. Some time later, perhaps a few days, as I was meditating, I heard this voice very clearly and it said to me, "You do not have your mother's DNA, you are energy." Without being able to rationally explain that, or understand it in a perfectly clear way, I knew that was true.....sort of a milestone it seemed had been reached that would pave the way for me to understand the things that you have been telling me.

I just think it's interesting and wanted to share it with you.

[emile]

hi carol, ... i can feel what you mean here, ... and it ties back to an odd experience that i had when my mother died. she was 93 and physically well till a few months before and mentally sharp till the last. myself and my sisters were caring for her at home, where she wanted to be, and the night before she died, i had this dream (in a sleep where one remains ‘on alert’ to any need to help out etc.) where i saw a tornado that started to lift itself from the ground and retreat back into the mother cloud, and then it hesitated and grounded itself again and it kept doing that as if tempted by two worlds, earth and sky. well its not hard to make a mapping from that imagery to my own reflections on life and living space etc., but a few hours later, a moment before she died, she sat up, the light in her eyes kind of flickering and unlike full consciousness, and she said ‘i had a wonderful life. i love you all’. and then she was gone. at least that’s what we say, when we speak of objects that exist or don’t without bothering with the spatial meaning of ‘gone’.

but afterwards (and i am dropping out all of the humongous emotional content here), i had to ask my sisters this question because i had distinctly heard her say ‘i had’ rather than ‘i have had’ and tuning in directly to the intent of her message, it made me think that it was not her final words but her post-final words; i.e. that she was speaking from the already-lifted-off position in the metaphor of the tornado. this curious ‘grammatical’ subtlety made a huge impression on me, blurring, as it did, the binaryness of ‘alive’ or ‘dead’, not unlike giegerich’s mention in the paper you referenced that we live within a space opened up between the bellies of earth and sky. now my head and heart are filled with many images from reading all kinds of stuff, but woven in there somewhere was a geometry that had previously awakened my intuitive knowing, by an austrian physicist seeking to reconcile relativity and quantum theory, gerhard groessing. in an essay in german entitled 'Die Information der Physik: Subjektal und Objektal' http://web.telekabel.at/ains/gg2.htm Gerhard writes about the evolution of our thinking about matter and space and how initially we saw the gods as controlling us (matter) and then newtonian physics saw space and time affecting matter asymmetrically (without matter effecting space) and finally in relativity where space and matter are seen as mutually effecting one another. the implications with respect to the observer, gerhard describes as follows;

“Only with circular causality does an essential characteristic of quantum theory become understandable: now we can no longer (in the metaphorically extended sense of 'linear') describe an 'object', unless we put the hermeneutical circle between 'object' and 'observational instrument' in the center of our awareness (whereby the detached independence of these two components shall be understood merely as a thought-prop)."

these sort of geometries are not what one runs into in the normal course of discussion, because we write the observer out of the script, so to speak and just give an account of our observations. but it struck me, perhaps in trying to capture gerhard’s meaning as i translated, german-english dictionary by my side, what it was he intended (does the intention come from him or is it resurrected from within me?). anyhow, the thought that i, each of us, could be the ‘energy’ which fabricated both subject and object as thought-props to talk about our experience definitely caught my interest, as it escaped the implied objectification of myself by objectifying others. gerhard elsewhere says;

“…if the world cannot just be divided up into merely locally separated entities: if we do have overwhelming evidence for nonlocality of nature, then why should it not be possible to start with this evidence as a basic quality of nature, and try to deduce further consequences therefrom ?”

anyhow, i am not saying we need physics or language or anything else to accept our felt experience and to be guided by it, ... but just as our discourse here is helping us to welcome into the world of words/language intuitive understandings we already have but which are not so readily accommodated by language, ... so it is here in the case of subject and object being our thought-props and ‘we’ being the continuously emerging mutual defining of actualizing assertive potentials and accommodative spatial backpressures,.... both of these being qualities of our living space and thus making us self-organizing spatial features that are purely relative, that, like the tornado, sustain an assertive-accommodative sky-earth, mutual defining for a while. a biologist friend refers to trees as fountains of the forest in this same sort of mutually defining geometry where the imagery is of water flowing from earth to sky in a circular current and the cellulose of the tree organized by the flow in the manner that dust is organized by a prairie dust-devil. certainly, regarding a tree as an object is tougher to do even than regarding a person as an object.

the thought my mother’s words had raised in me was that she was ‘the meeting of’ assertive potentials that had been actualizing relative to the accommodating backpressure of the space she was situationally included in, for the past 93 years and that this asserting-accommodating was declining below the threshold strength needed to sustain it, but rather than her becoming ‘extinct’, that is was the accommodative quality of her living space that had become less accommodative relative to her assertive potentials. here again was stephen jay gould’s critique that attacked the notion of ‘fitness’ in darwinian evolutionary theory via the baseball metaphor where it was not that .400 hitters had become extinct, it was instead that hitting and fielding were mutually defining and that fielding had become less accommodating to hitters, thus modeling evolution on one-sided basis of the ‘fitness’ of the objects, ignored the two-sided individual-asserting-spatial-accommodating nature of our living space dynamics.

so when we speak of ‘extinctions’, we may as well speak in the reciprocal terms of spatial disaccommodatings. if the oxygen content of atmospheric space drops, those actualizing assertive potentials in sustained balance with spatial accommodating backpressures, aka ‘organisms’, may ‘become extinct’ that are unable to sustain a mutual balancing given the changes in the spatial accommodating backpressure. this may give another way of looking at the recent findings of unexplainable mass extinctions in the geologic record; ; http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/10/MNGFIBN6PO1.DTL

as for ‘DNA’, we already have many examples of precise and esoteric structures that emerge from a mutual defining; e.g. the hexagonal structures of honeycomb. in the evolutionary record, bees first built individual spheres to hold their larvae. the new hexagonal cells cut material requirements in half and abolished the 37% at least waste space associated with packed spheres. the trick was for the bees to use the outside of his neighbour’s cell for the inside of his cell, a solution that leads directly to the highly optimized (mathematically and practically) vaulted hexagon structure. if one imagines oneself as a bee, one can imagine pushing out to form the wall of the cell at the same time one’s neighbour’s are pushing so that the wall is a mutual accomplishment. of course, all the bees may think in terms of themselves pushing inside-outward to form the walls, and it will be simply the accommodative backpressure of space that gives a mutually defining precision and optimization to the structure that boggled the minds of mathematically-inclined biologists. to call this ‘intelligent design’ would be to impose our own appreciation of the precision attributes of the structure onto the bees when it is in fact the residue of a more complex mutually defining assertive-accommodative dynamic. if we marvel at the ‘object-structure’ itself, whether a gene, a person or a honeycomb, then we may blind ourselves to the spatial flow it is included in (and continuously precipitating from).

in our social dynamics, we create .400 hitters by our accommodative opening up to them, perhaps because we see ourselves in them and want to help them fully actualize their assertive potentials. were the beatles the phenomena there were in a purely assertive sense, or was there some huge mutually defining assertive-accommodative ‘coresonance’ going on?

anyhow, thanks carol, our evolving understanding emerges in a mutually-defining way so i appreciate the opportunity to participate with you in the transforming of our understanding. an assertive soliloquy on your part or mine would not convey understanding in the same way. where the actualizing of our asserting potentials engage with the accommodating backpressure of the common listening space is where its at (and the respectfulness of the listening space emanating from all of the participants here and the sponsors is such that i would share things that i would never dream of sharing in many typical listening spaces)

[Carol Massey]

Ahh! emile, so many questions I have now, and hardly know where to begin, but after reading your response, my thinking keeps coming back to 'resonance'.

You asked, "were the beatles the phenomena there were in a purely assertive sense, or was there some huge mutually defining assertive-accommodative ‘coresonance’ going on?"

Oh! Surely the answer is yes! So do you think it is indicative that 'agreement', perhaps a critical mass, a threshold that when reached, reinforces the potential of actualization of a 'thing'? If so, what might be the role of intentionality of individuals, might it simply be the same as becoming 'receptive', open to receive, open-minded, and focused intently in the present (such as might be experienced when attending a Beatles concert/though for me it was James Brown ;>)

Some of the things I intuit about 'resonance':

But I have to wonder about the word 'coresonance', wouldn't that be something of a misnomer?...it's a confusing word to me because my experience of what I define as resonance seems to imply that it is a unified state, an experience of energy that is the foundation of all life, in essence, the dynamic holism. Such that when I 'sense', 'feel' this energy coursing through me, my perception of it is that it is arising from a shared, trans-local (or non-local), and impersonal aspect which is the very foundation of self-organization. IOW, it is singular at it's core, but penetrating everything.

Another observation regarding this energetic resonance is that it seems to be very conscious and is triggered by certain thoughts, actions, or relationships that might be considered sharing, caring, altruistic, loving, forgiving, peaceful, ...ones which are expansive rather than constrictive such as the opposites of these. Now, keeping in mind the ideas you have graciously shared with me regarding the 'accomodating' function, I'm wondering if this energetic dynamic is characteristic of activity that is essentially 'yin', and when flowing in harmony with the 'yang', can be detected within the physical body.

I've been aware of this energy for many years, and know that it is increasing in intensity and duration, or, my perception of it has become more continious and stable. However it may be, it naturally leads me to wonder that as we approach the later years of our life, and again, because of self-organization, it is a natural process of beginning to release our connection to the physical body.

Thank you for sharing the event of your mother's passing. It is a beautiful story, as is your entire post for that matter, and I will respond more fully as time permits, hopefully tomorrow, emile.

P.S. Every tree I saw today, I thought of as forest fountains. They're beautiful here now with their small, new, lime-green leaves, and so many wearing their colorful spring blooms. The redbuds are glorious this year, and the dogwoods soon will be.

[emile]

hi carol,

it seems to me that we are dialoguing at the level of common understanding of experience, and our language can only be a support tool, and unlikely to be able to, with a word, capture the complexity of our experience. language lags the kind of thing we are talking about (the meaning of words is not intrinsic, but emanates from the popular response to them; i.e. the same word elicits different meanings in different people.)

with that qualification, i’ll do my word-based thing in response to your word-based thing.

re ‘co-resonance’, ... this is one of the words that is problematic because of its ambiguity, but there are lots more (e.g. co-dynamic versus dynamic, co-evolution versus evolution, anticipation versus transformation etc.). if you look up ‘anticipatory systems’ on google, you get about 10,000 hits, including an interview with the late robert rosen (‘Life Itself’) http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/rsntpe.html . rosen was one of a growing number of ‘heretics’ in science, made into ‘heretics’ by the gatekeepers of mainstream (political establishment based) science who are specifying and policing rather tight and constraining boundaries on science. rosen’s daughter judith continues to share his work with the public because she understands and believes in the social value associated with opening the way think and therefore behave, influenced as deeply as it is by science. i don’t share rosen’s views, which split apart inanimate nature from animate nature, but i understand ‘where he is coming from’ with his ‘anticipatory systems’ (my thinking is that we have to pull back from our dependency on ‘time’ and thus ‘anticipatory’ will not do. interestingly, some usages of the term ‘co-resonance’ are being referred to, and treated as ‘scientific heresy’ (implying the dogmatic nature of mainstream science) as discussed in a science conference ‘On the Nature of Science’ in france in august, 2003. one of the contributions to the conference was by ‘heretic’ jacques benveniste; e.g


The Limits of Science
Jacques Benveniste –Invited Speaker - Directeur de Recherche Emérite at Inserm – France

Fibrinogen coagulation by thrombin is severely blunted by a virtual anti-thrombin, i.e. the EM signal, first computer-recorded from molecular anti-thrombin then “replayed” to water. How this result is received by the
scientific “community” reveals several anomalies of contemporary science.

This advance is linked to the physical nature of the molecular signal and its mode of action, by co-resonance, which does not violate any physical law. Many aspects of biology, now purely phenomenological, become operational. An example out of many possibilities is the detection of a microbe anywhere from anywhere. Nevertheless, the “peers” burst with indignation. Fraud was evoked and pre-scientific words flourished, such as “heresy”, indicating the startling existence of dogmas in science.

This story reveals other breaches on what are (or should be) cast-iron scientific principles, not mentioning (not being the subject of this presentation) outdated sheer honesty:

1) Acceptance of a result only depends on its statistical significance. An impaired coagulation indicates an anticoagulant effect, which cannot be dismissed because the reason for inhibition is unusual. Research relies precisely on paying attention to “anomalous” phenomena.

2) Science (and art, and industry, and...) progress through trials and errors. If error becomes a crime, science will idle and stop. It has idled and stopped, in fact, since the mid-twentieth century, under the cover of technological hops.

3) Another principle appears sound... in principle: results must be replicable in other labs. If stringently applied to “nascent” results that appear one day to escape the next one, it will forbid any really new advance. Our original work, the effect of highly dilute biological substances, dubbed “the memory of water”, has been independently replicated in six laboratories, one of them twice. This didn’t deter the spread of the rumor (not replicated) and the ensuing excommunication. What kind of totalitarian ideology is there behind this nonsense, or should I say this non-science?

4) I propose a dogma: science is foreign to dogmas, which are antithetical to research. Yet, such practices have nowadays overwhelmed the system – the word “heretics” indicates a fixed set of rules- which itself evolved from individualistic activity to a bureaucratic Leviathan.

The controlling bodies are main institutions, national academies, inefficient centrally run organisms (CNRS in France, NIH in the USA...) and major science journals which now tell what to investigate on, or else “you will not be published”. This oligarchic bureaucracy, with no democratic and legal framework, offers easy stifling levers to the happy few in control. In the name of excellence, the peer-review system allows self-appointed representatives of the existing science to reject upsetting ideas.

Is there an antidote to these menaces to scientific progress, that is to our civilization? Probably not. Perhaps a simple measure: allocate 5% of research budgets to projects turned down by the passés “experts”, possibly the only way to let fresh air flow into the system? Provisionally endorsing a false idea or fact is much less harmful to science than rejecting a real one, declared “unbelievable” by some close-minded autocrats. Anyhow, we do not built nature but unveil it, and the only competent judge is time.
* * *

ok, that’s the background, and anyone who discusses the ideas we have been talking about whose profession is ‘science’ in the middle ground of science or in science education is going to get into trouble and essentially be treated as a non-scientific heretic, as i have mentioned before. the examples made of some encourage many others to back off their similar thoughts.

back to the general problem of ‘missing language’ or ‘ambiguous language’, such as in ‘co-resonance’, ‘co-evolution’ (environment-organism co-evolution). all of these problems emerge in the context of ‘the relativity of motion’. now just as benveniste points out that scientists ‘do not construct nature but unveil it’, i am not saying that physics is the prime reference base for understanding our living space, ... as henri poincaré suggests, our experience is undeniably the source of truth, logic and the mathematics of physics is barren without being made fertile with an intuitive infusion sourced by our experience. besides, as he also points out, most of mathematics has its foundation in objects or ‘pure elemental being’, an absolutist notion that escapes the internal consistency validating techniques of logic and mathematics.

the foundational notion of an ‘object’ is a trojan horse that carries into science and into our language a whole world view and to question the assumption that the dynamics of our living space ‘is the work of objects in action’ is the heresy that has made a formerly respected scientist like benveniste into a disenfranchised scientific heretic.

but the dogmatic stance of science does more,... it keeps the intuitive understandings of our hostspace dynamics of the type that we are sharing in this pari-center forum from being aired openly in the meeting halls and journals of science; i.e. it keeps the artists and musicians from reconciling their intuitive ideas with the object-oriented scientists and scientific thinking that dominates the ‘management side’ of our culture (business, economy, politics, governance). the dogmatic views of science, being embodied in our approaches to social dynamics management, find their way into our educational system (one-sided rewards for assertive achievement, collective ignoring of the accommodative quality and participation of space; i.e. encouraging youth in the neo-darwinist behavioural ethic) thus helping to ensure their perpetuation.

why should we want to remove our dependence on objects? as musicians and lovers, we can simply make music (resonance), no problem, but as social dynamics managers (which we all are, in a shorter or longer reaching way), there is a major difference if our management style is ‘object-oriented’ in the western cultural tradition, or not. that is, it is a spooky idea to many scientists, to suggest that space itself can be the coordinating influence that orchestrates the dynamics of multiple ‘objects’. science has gotten used to thinking in the terms that, if something happens, we can work backwards in time and find the ‘causal agency’ whether it be an organism (virus) or a stray quark or whatever. to this self-constraining science, all action is yang action, emanating from the movement of ‘material objects’.

now you’d think that science as a whole would ‘loosen up’ and ‘give space a chance’ as michael faraday did when he declared that the electro-magnetic field was more fundamental than the motion of charged or magnetized particles (material objects). the analogy would be to give the gravitational field precedence over the massy material objects, ... perhaps allowing ‘resonance’ to be the stuff responsible for the inertial heaviness we call ‘mass’ etc.

in any case, what benveniste, and rosen and caldwell and rayner and many others butt up against, is mainstream science’s refusal to allow the notion of a dynamical space being the over-riding influencer of the behaviour of the included-in-space objects. imagine what this would do to our social dynamics management theories! it would suggest that rather than seeking to control what the objects do, we could ‘stir up the hostspace’ and let the included participants behaviours be orchestrated by the sustaining of resonances in the hostspace, in the manner of musicians and dancers.

... continued below...

[emile]

... continuation from above, ....

if we use a model that ‘gets rid of objects’ (gets rid of ‘pure being’) as the primary foundation of the world dynamic and model the world dynamic as in ‘relativity’ where the primary foundation is spatial-relational dynamics and objects are secondary (we do this all the time in wavefield imaging in seismology, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound etc.; i.e. the visual objects can simply be reflecting interfaces rather than ‘pure-being-based objects’) then the apparent objects are free to transform and morph and ‘co-evolve’ within the overall ‘co-dynamic’. in this usage of ‘co-dynamic’, one can think of, instead of multiple ‘pure-being based material objects’, resonant flow-features such as hurricanes in the atmosphere. then it is easy to recognize that what WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT is the transformation of the hostspace. separating out the flow-features and giving them names etc. is an operation imposed by the observer. as poincaré points out, this is the imposing of the absolute space and absolute time (the reference frame that gives independence of motion to the flow-features, at the same time, makes invisible to the observing mind the transforming hostspace wherein everything that moves is related to everything else that moves; i.e. there is just one evolving-in-shape spatial-relational dynamic). so, (1.) we start with flow-features within a spatial-relational fieldspace that attract our attention,(2.) we impose the abstract notions of absolute euclidian space and absolute universal time framing, and (3.) we end up with objects, ‘pure being’, that we have names for and can talk about as if they ‘existed’ and ‘behaved’ in-their-own-right.

now, by imposing these abstractions of absolute space and absolute universal time on our essential spatial-relational perceptual experience, we have reduced the world dynamic from purely relational to ‘object-based’ and as it happens, we have this great tool called ‘mathematics’ which is also object-based and which lends itself to the object-based descriptions of the world. by describing the world scientifically in this object-oriented manner, we can extrapolate into the future and back into the past (‘big bang’ etc.) and develop an understanding of the world dynamic in a time-sequential ‘historical’ sense (not to be confused with evolutional-historical as in the case of transforming spatial relationships). as elizabeth keller charges, ... this sleight of hand to reduce our experience to pure yang terms because of the tractability of object-based mathematical tools, that abandons the foundational role of spatial relationships, seems to emanate from the ‘gender-bias’ that prevails in science.

ok, so what is the impact on popular language usage if we go back to using the spatial-relational and avoid imposing these esoteric notions of absolute space and absolute universal time?

well, all we have is the evolving hostspace that is purely spatial relational and what we were calling ‘objects’ and attributing ‘pure being’ to them are now ‘flow-features’ (e.g. spatial relational resonant flows or whorls at the level of the atom, which nest within larger whorls at the level of the molecule, which nest in turn within still larger whorls at the level of the cell, and so on through the level of the organism and the community and the globe and the cosmos,.... and everything is spatial-relational flux, field, flowspace, ... a timeless spatial-relational dynamic that transpires in the continuing present, ... and the ‘grit’ in it (the ‘objects’ that we perceive as resistant, inertial matter) is not ‘pure-being’ but simply strong, persisting inclusionally nesting resonances. this is essentially the implication of relativity where the gravitational field becomes more foundational than the traditional massy particles.

ok, the ‘co-‘ to shed some light on ‘co-resonance’, if one looks up this prefix in the dictionary comes up with; ‘with’, ‘together’, ‘joint’, ‘jointly’ etc. so there is no obligation to reverse engineer ‘together’ into ‘discrete constituents’, ... the togetherness could imply the flow-feature multiplicity of hurricanes in the atmosphere which is based on their multiple centers of coherency within a timeless spatial-relational dynamic , without need to speak of multiple instances of ‘pure being’ (without need to ‘objectify’ the multiplicity implied in the world together).

some people want to objectify ‘people’ because they insist that we each have ‘free will’, ‘choice’ and that we are each responsible for our own behaviour. what they fail to consider is that they are included within a dynamical hostspace that has an accommodative ‘shape’ to it that over-ridingly constrains their behaviour. they may choose to ‘walk on water’ but the water may not accommodate the actualizing of this assertive behaviour on their part. what they are keying to is post-actualization ‘visible perception’. our felt experience is keying to the accommodative quality of space, the possibility-to-assert giving quality of space. we are ‘space-guided’ in our behaviours by the shaped accommodative quality of space. visual perception wise, we can see that we walked around the perimeter of the concrete wall until we came to an entry gate, and we can explain our after-the-fact trajectory by saying that ‘we chose’ to behave in this way, which is fair enough as far as it goes, ... but it does not deny that the over-riding shaper of the behaviour of individuals is the accommodative quality of the hostspace we are included in, and this is ‘invisible’. i may go naked in the privacy of my house because ‘i choose to’, and i may wear clothes when i go to town because ‘i choose to’, ... but there is this fundamental problem in specifying the behaviour of an individual in terms of it being driven by his internal purpose,... but that is all that object-based behavioural specification allows, and because it jibes with our visual perception (our post-actualization reality), everything looks like it checks out fine, and after all, ‘seeing is believing’. but the space-guided aspect of our behaviour is pre-actualization and therefore not directly visible (it is only our actualized potentials that become visible). what we do is just the tip of the phenomenal iceberg, ... how our behavioural potentials are contained and shaped by the accommodative quality of the hostspace we are included in never makes it to the visible post-actualization record. it is radically incomplete, in inquiring into the nature of social dynamics, to approach the inquiry in terms of ‘what people do’, ... and it is radically incomplete, in inquiring into the nature of dynamics in general, to approach the inquiry in terms of ‘what things do’. does the earth rotate?, ... this question makes no sense, as poincaré explains since we can only know that the sun and planets move together under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence (newton had no problem with accepting that ‘the earth rotates’, since he fully accepted the euclidian nature of space; i.e. he equated mathematical geometry with reality as is our mainstream tradition in the western culture). if you believe in ‘pure being’; i.e. in the existence of objects (such as ‘the self’) then you believe that space really is an empty container of infinite extent that provides a place for these objects to move about in; i.e. to be displaced in time.).

so, how practical is this notion of abandoning absolute space and absolute time and going with pure spatial-relational geometro-dynamics?


.... scusi! ... continued below....

[emile]

.... continued from above, ....

how practical it was hit me over the head when i was given a funded project within a large corporation to study the nature of exceptionally performing teams, and i came to the same ‘heretical conclusion’ in all three of the teams that qualified for ‘exceptional performing’. such teams are rare and seem to emerge from time to time, ... however, management wanted naturally to ‘clone them’.

the largest of the teams was 150 persons who were based in bakersfield, california. and because they were operating in the red they were threatened with having their operations sold off and the jobs liquidated. while looking for a buyer, management gave them a free hand to do whatever they wanted to put themselves into the black. after five years or so of trying to ‘tighten up’ the operation, improve the strategies, practices and command-and-control discipline of the team, they managed to cut overheads almost in half, but that was still not enough to take them below the declining (price-deflated) revenues.

amazingly, the team, spurred by their desire to retain their jobs and their place of residence in bakersfield which they had grown attached to, ... the team cut overheads in half yet again, and succeeded in getting back in the black and much more (over-achieving environmental friendliness goals and community relationship goals etc.). they broke all the rules of organization that they had been brought up with. they found that the hierarchical command and control management approach was a problem and they resolved to flip from inside-outward driven behaviour to outside-inward guided behaviour. in order to do this, they had to relax their top-down command system, using it only in exceptional circumstances and they let the organization re-form in response to the outside-inward guidance; i.e. they, as a peer collective from engineer to union labourer went out and met with the host communities they were ‘asserting into’ to see how their operations could be more ‘in phase’ with the community dynamics. they met with their business customers to see how their product and service deliveries could be delivered more in harmony with their client’s operations (e.g. quality control and refinement according to the client’s spec’s could be done without added cost pre-delivery). they met with their suppliers to find out how they could adjust their calls for provisioning to tap into the supplier’s inventory dynamics in more harmonious way, ... and they met with their servicing contractors to see how they could adjust their maintenance and repair approach so as to reduce the expensive and redundant standby of expensive equipment and expertise that influenced the costs of contract services (instead of the military style on the part of the team supervisor calling to the contractor and demanding rapid response, the contractor would alert the relevant team member to the fact that he had expensive equipment and personnel in the area for another job and see if it would fit into the maintenance/servicing needs etc.; i.e. the spatial-relational moved into primacy over clockwork-based assertive forward ratcheting).

insofar as made sense, the team let their real-time (i.e. spatial-relational) organizational dynamic morph from the outside-inward hostspace guidance, ‘living’ the reality that the actualizing of their assertive potentials and the accommodating of the dynamical hostspace were mutually defining. in essence, this equated to building a bulbous bow on a ship so as to lower the mutually defining assertive-accommodative dissonance (turbulence), and therefore to go farther and faster for less expenditure of energy. in effect, this re-cast the team, rather than being an asserting object in-its-own-right, a parasite exploiting the hostspace, instead, as a self-centered coherent dynamical-feature included within the spatial-relational hostspace dynamic.

though this exceptionally performing team was recognized, celebrated and saved from being auctioned off, senior management insisted on finding out ‘who on the team was most responsible’ for this success (consistent with the purely yang asserting scientific paradigm) and though these individuals themselves insisted that management ‘did not get it’, ... they were promoted and transferred out to clone their efforts elsewhere. this didn’t work, of course, because the freedom to ‘break all the rules of command-and-control hierarchy and military discipline’ were not lifted across the corporation and without the freedom to relax the inside-outward internal corporate purpose behaviour-actualizing drive and let participate in a mutual defining with the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace dynamic, ... there was no way to replicate the exceptional performance. the reason for the rare emergence of such teams is that it is rare when the whole cadre of supervisors, professionals, superintendants, labourers and managers can ‘let go’ of their authoritative empowerment and be organizationally morphed by the accommodative backpressure of the community hostspace dynamic.

as gould said, one cannot assess ‘hitting’ without at the same time assessing ‘fielding’ since the two are mutually defining, ... but darwinian theory does precisely that, assessing the ‘fitness’ of the individual species in-its-own-right, and so does mainstream science in general.

how many corporate managers would accept, as that exceptionally performing team did, that their organization is a centered coherent inclusion within the common community hostspace dynamic, rather than having pure-being existence-that-asserts-in-its-own-right? and what would it take for that ethic of ‘nested inclusionality’ that knows no boundaries to spread generally, since it would ignore national boundaries, the ‘hostspace’ being defined in a purely spatial-relational sense?

anyhow, we can mentally model this team’s organizing in alternative ways; (a.) in terms of pure being and internal-purpose driven asserting, and (b.) in terms of a centered dynamical coherency nesting inclusionally like a whorl in a river, within a hostspace flow-dynamic.

as an individual or a team or a nation or corporation, these alternatives imply three different ultimate ‘end-games’; (a.) assertively impose order on the world, and (b.) become one with the hostspace flow and (c.) sustain mutual defining harmony (co-resonance) with one another and the hostspace flow-dynamic. the latter (c.) option would equate to the native notion of an opening in the sacred (host-)space for one’s authentic becoming.

in living the (c.) option we put ourselves in the ‘balance place’ between our internal purpose drive to assert and our willingness to take guidance from our inclusion within the hostspace dynamic. we can imagine these two alternative personas operating within us as we navigate a crowd flow-dynamic or a traffic flow-dynamic, ... pushing our way through or letting us become one with the accommodating flow. resonances in the hostspace dynamic can guide us in playing the (c.) balance-place end-game; i.e. our authentic becoming would equate to out attuning to, and being guided by our sustaining of inner-outer assertive-accommodative resonance. through the mediation of the common hostspace flow-dynamic, the centered coherencies would seek to sustain co-resonance.

this long ramble was not intended to legitimize the use of ‘co-resonance’ in place of ‘resonance’ but to scope out the nature of these dynamics so as to give spatial-relational context/meaning to whatever we want to call it. overall, there is a whole symphony going on, as is implied in your statements on nature in the spring, so the resonances take many forms yet they are spatially-relationally relating. in an aeolian harp (see/hear for example http://members.aol.com/woinem1/index/eolsharf.htm ) multiple identical (more-or-less) strings tensioned to give the same tone will, through the mediating hostspace dynamic (wind) invite a multiplicity of resonances that are meanwhile harmonically (resonantly) related.

[Carol Massey]

emile: in living the (c.) option we put ourselves in the ‘balance place’ between our internal purpose drive to assert and our willingness to take guidance from our inclusion within the hostspace dynamic. we can imagine these two alternative personas operating within us as we navigate a crowd flow-dynamic or a traffic flow-dynamic, ... pushing our way through or letting us become one with the accommodating flow. resonances in the hostspace dynamic can guide us in playing the (c.) balance-place end-game; i.e. our authentic becoming would equate to out attuning to, and being guided by our sustaining of inner-outer assertive-accommodative resonance. through the mediation of the common hostspace flow-dynamic, the centered coherencies would seek to sustain co-resonance.

emile, several years ago, our dental practice was given the option to sign agreements with various insurance companies representing local businesses, wherein we would become a provider office for their clients' employees and their families. In return for reduced payment for services, we would receive a monthly $$$ amount for every member assigined to our office. As a selling point for this strange way of doing business, the insurance company representative explained that we would realize a greater profit by signing on with them because it was a known fact that at least 50% of the members would never visit our office, and yet we would be receiving a check monthly...regardless. Also, we would be reimbursed at a higher rate for simple fillings, and a lower percentage amount for more expensive treatment such as crowns and /or bridges. Of course this was intended to restrict the recommendation and performance of higher end dental services

I recall that as we sat there simply staring at this representative, and wondering from which planet he flew in, everyone in our office, almost in unison protested greatly at such a proposal. For these reasons, which now I might understand as hostspace considerations... that we were unconsciously doing anyway.

1) The 'plan' suggested a reversal of our ethics by paying us for work not done, actually suggesting that we would profit from it. IOW, rather than being glad that we had patients that sought us out as a dental practice for caring for their dental needs, we should spend our days hoping that no one walked through the door.

2) The manipulation of the fee schedule in such a way that even if the preferred restoration was a crown or bridge, which is a costly but worthwhile treatment for people who value their teeth and want to maintain them, the subliminal suggestion was...do the less expensive treatment that would provide a greater $$$ return for time and service rendered. It undermined and eroded the foundation on which the practice has flourished for 40 years, the ethics of honesty and treating patients in the highest possible way, providing for their dental health needs, and in the shared hostspace, thereby insuring that our own needs were met.

We declined to participate with any of the dental maintenaince organizatons, and a little nervously at first as many offices were saying, "well, we have no choice, it's the wave of the future". In making the determination 'not' to participate, which was a decision based on 'ethical business practice', our office continued to flourish and never skipped a beat. We may have lost a few of our patients as they gravitated to the dmo's in the beginning, but now 20 years further down the road, and semi-retired, it is extremely satisfying to know that when we chose the higher path of inclusion, rather than acting in our 'own' supposedly best interest, it seemed that the hostspace gladly supported such a decision.

You're sharing the above story brought that to mind again. Just thought to share it with you.

Have a good weekend emile.

[emile]

carol, thanks for your response to my lengthy response, ... and a good weekend to you and yours!

your insurance experience is very interesting;

one can look at what was going on in the insurance scheme you turned down in two ways at the same time, as in our prior discussion;

1.   beyond good-and-bad manipulation of the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace, ... the perception of dynamic in terms of space-guided behaviour


2.   the ethics of doing, ... the perception of dynamics in terms of internal purpose driven behaviour


since our cultural default is to perceive reality and to manage social dynamics on the basis of ‘what things do’ (visual space perception), we are constrained to speaking in terms of ‘ethics’, ... whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to do something. so we have decided to manage our social dynamics on this basis, on the basis of what people do, whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

what people do is ‘after-the-fact’; i.e. it is all ‘post-actualizational’ and ignores the fact that the actualizing of assertive potentials and the shape of the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace are mutually defining (‘hitting’ and ‘fielding’ are mutually defining).

on the art side of things, we write plays like ‘miss saigon’ which tells the story of a single mother whose hostspace presents a shaped accommodative backpressure to her; her natural assertive potential is ready to actualize so as to feed and clothe and educate her baby but the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace is ‘shaped’ so that almost all corridors of actualization are highly resistant other than prostitution which is highly accommodative.

for a culture that perceives dynamics only in terms of ‘what things do’, as if the individual does them in-their-own-independent-right driven by their own internal purpose,... one can only impose ethical judgement on the woman, but not on the community hostspace because the tradition is to perceive reality solely in the ‘objectified’ terms of what things do. the notion of a shaped, behaviour-guiding accommodative hostspace backpressure, ... is something that, if you mention it to most scientists, ... will draw either laughter or contempt. i know because i’ve tried.

while you couched the insurance deal in ethical terms, our society does not prosecute people for co-creatively shaping the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace. why not? because mathematically, it can be shown that it is impossible to blame any particular person for doing this; i.e. one cannot find the equivalent of space-guiding people’s behaviour in terms of ‘what someone does’. if miss saigon sits within a circle of ten men and proposes; ‘i need to feed my baby. i want to wash your dishes in exchange for food’, and get’s ten ‘no’ answers, ... and ‘i want to scrub your floors’, same result, ... ‘i want to do your laundry’, same resistant accommodative backpressure result,... and as everybody knows, including miss saigon, she must come up with ‘magic words’ that will lower the accommodative backpressure and open up an actualization corridor that will allow here to feed herself and her baby. when she does, they will be ‘her words’ and ‘her proposal’, and what man can resist such proposals coming from attractive young women? our society does not blame men for succumbing to such devilishly tempting proposals, ... just as our society is blind to the ‘participation of space’ in physical phenomena, ... though ‘relativity’ implies that we must account for the geometry of space in perceiving dynamics. poincaré was most clear on the macro-applicability of this though most scientists defer to einstein, and disregard the macro-issues. meanwhile, einstein did say;

"[space] not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.", ... "the recognition of the fact that 'empty space' in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials g(mu-nu), has, I think finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty." And together with Leopold Infeld in 'The Evolution of Physics' says; "Our world is not Euclidian. The geometrical nature of our world is [reciprocally] shaped by masses and their velocities. The gravitational equations of the general theory of relativity theory try to disclose the geometrical properties of our world. . . . It [relativity] forces us to analzye the role played by geometry in the physical description of the world."

but we don’t have to be an einstein to figure this stuff out. we only have to suspend our acculturated way of thinking, that has us base our reality on what we visually perceive. what we see is just the post-actualization precipitate of what we feel.

imagine we put black paint on the bottom of someone’s shoes before they are going to navigate a crowd dynamic in a crowded piazza. after the crowd has dispersed and the piazza is empty, we come back with that person to survey the crooked trail of black-paint footsteps across the piazza. if we ask him; ‘who is responsible for this trail’, he will say; ‘i am’. if we say; ‘what made you do it’, he will say; ‘i was driven by my internal purpose to cross the piazza.’. but if we were to ask him; ‘ok, i understand that you are fully and solely responsible for ‘doing this’, for ‘making this trail across the piazza’, ... but are you fully and solely responsible for the shape of the trail?”, ... he would answer ‘no’, ....that ‘his behaviour was shaped’ by the geometry of the hole-space that was continuously opening up since that offered less accommodative backpressure (was more accommodating) than any internally-driven ‘direct route’. thus the actualizing his assertive potential was shaped by the geometry of the accommodative backpressure of space.

all we can see is this man crossing the piazza. we do not see the shape of space that was guiding his behaviour which was, in fact, unique to his situational inclusion within the dynamically evolving hostspace. could we ‘take a picture’ of this shape that was guiding his behaviour? not really because it is evanescent, purely relational which means it ‘does not exist’. it is pure spatial-relational ‘becoming’ emerging in the continuing present. we know about this kind of thing from acoustic wave dynamics and holography. mcluhan spoke about it and how it different from visual space perception.

is man’s behaviour ‘evanescent-geometry-of-space-guided in the continuing now’ or is it ‘an internal purpose-driven sequence of euclidian space displacements’? going by the example of the man with paint on his soles, it is both at the same time. what do we ‘lose’ if we go with the post-actualization visual perception as seen by an outside observer? we lose all sense of how the shape of the accommodative backpressure of the hostspace guided the man’s behaviour.

our western culture manages social dynamics on the basis of ‘what INDIVIDUALS do’, ... the post-actualization visual record. we do not manage social dynamics on the basis of invisible, ephemeral geometries of the relative accommodative backpressure of space, ... though we can read about such things, for example, in henri poincaré’s essay ‘the relativity of space’ where he points out that space is not homogeneous and depending on how you are situated within it, it may be far easier to permeate it by some passages rather than others, ... this of course shaping the actualizing of one’s assertive potentials.

carol, your refusal to participate in a scheme you felt to be unethical was inspired by your ability to intuit how the accommodative backpressures of the hostspace dynamic would be reshaped. you wanted to actualize your assertive potentials to barter help given to others in exchange for your living needs, but you did not want to establish an accommodative spatial backpressure that behaviour-guided those seeking help to bias their statistics on the work they had done relative to the work they needed, so as to deliver a surplus to the insurance companies, a portion of which would be paid to you for establishing the ‘accommodative spatial backpressure’ shaping that would behaviour-guide in a manner that would deliver a surplus to the insurance companies, over and above what they paid to you for shaping the accommodative backpressure.

evidently, many have accepted such schemes and there are no prosecutions since manipulating the shape of space is not a crime, since the invisible, evanescent (pure becoming) nature of the shape of space, an acoustic space wave dynamic which we can surely ‘feel’ but cannot see, is not acknowledged to be a participant in physical phenomena, ... though everybody knows it is. our object-based language games, which key to visual space and ignore our inclusional acoustic space experience, help to perpetuate this obvious social dynamics (self-)management dysfunction.

[Carol Massey]

emile, just a few thoughts on what 'space' means to me. It is rich, filled with pre-actualization (if there is such a word or concept) potential. In my perception, it also seems that it readily (almost eagerly) resonates and brings forth the necessary accomodating functions that make it possible to manifest certain attributes, objects, states of awareness, bringing to consciousness all these things. It seems to me that it consistently reinforces and accuates what I consider to be 'unselfish' desires, wants, needs. Also, I think that the co-resonance of the accomodating and the assertive interaction in the process of creation is more attuned to emotional, feeling states than visual, object-based reality. Quite obviously, the OB reality is a factor, but, I'm not sure that the accomodating function is 'aware' in that respect...no. perhaps it's awareness is attuned to energy dynamics, intensities, and as a 'blip' of consciousness, it is for the individual to determine the assertive 'shape' of actual objects, and once this is accomplished, the accomodative mechanism, says, "Yes". And if, as a conscious entity of beingness, though limited, I'm the one that must wrestle with the possible outcomes of potential actualizations. IOW, the utility of discernment is primarily a conscious function, and when I have digested the information and looked at both the accomodating, and the assertive possibilites that exist in the process of 'choosing' some thing, then (through assertion) I can non-verbally, but energetically initiate the necessary threshold impulse dynamics required for the generation of something new....in affirmative symphony with the accomodative 'space'.

Oh, but my, I hope that is not overly confusing, emile.... drats! language!

But I truly desire to figure this out. ;>) Even if in my fear of sounding a bit strange, I have to be able to discard ignorance...so sometimes it is very necessary to lay it out before me to look at.

[emile]

carol, ... in my view, intellectual processing or ‘visual imagery construction’ is just one of our tools. even in a coma, our body, whatever that is, is in continuous assertive-accommodative dynamical balancing dance with the hostspace it is included that includes material (i.e. energy) exchanges. as henri poincaré points out in ‘the relativity of space’, the frog whose head is removed retains a sense of spatial-relational orientation as is manifest by the headless frog trying to remove a drop of acid-irritant placed on his skin. so-called ‘maverick’ biophysicists (e.g. friedrich cramer, candace pert) allude to a very different imagery of the body’s sensory system which supports the point that poincaré was making, that our spatial awareness is embodied deeply within and throughout the body. the now established notion of mobile peptides (‘molecules of emotion’) and cell receptors in which they ‘dock’ opens the door to a very different view of our ‘sense-interpret-decide-act’ functioning than suggested by the brain as a central control unit. in particular, while the brain-based model requires the ‘interpret-decide’ steps, ... the body seems capable of direct sense-act, leaving out the ‘time-based processing (interpretation FOLLOWED BY decision). if the body could feel inner-outer compression and expansion within a hostspace characterized by compression-expansion dynamics (acoustic space wave dynamics wherein an expansion of the included assertor is, at the same time, a contraction of the including accommodator) then we might be able to ‘upgrade’ our mental model of the assertive agent (which we conventionally frame in euclidian x,y,z,t giving the assertor a curvilinear trajectory, thanks only to this abstract framing we mentally impose) and include him in the substance of the hostspace. so the question is raised as to how many experience-reducing subjective conventions we are imposing on our model of the body that is not imposed on nature, ...to paraphrase poincaré yet again.

we might also ask how our imposed mental modeling ‘hides’ aspect of our sentient experiencing of participation in a common living space.

one of the most notable ‘exclusions’ of important spatial relationships that are available to our felt experience can be easily seen in a crowd dynamic (a crowd dynamic gives a general geometro-dynamical view of the relationship between the individual and the collective). when a collective interpermeates itself within a common hostspace, like a busy pedestrian intersection, the ‘accommodating’ authored by the collective (the opening up of space to allow the actualizing of individual assertive intrudings) is going on AT THE SAME TIME as the actualizing of the assertive intrudings. the same group of people is doing the accommodating and the asserting AT THE SAME TIME. each participant wears two hats at the same time, the accommodator hat and the assertor hat. the participants move under one another’s simultaneous mutual influence, the same situation as prevails with the sun and planets collective, as the classic work of henri poincaré on the stability of the solar system elucidated.

when we are moving through the crowd, we are the crowd, we assert at the same time as we as we accommodate, we are the included assertive agent and the hostspace dynamic the assertive agent depends on for the accommodating of his asserting.

how do we reduce this complexity to one-sided assertive action on the part of material objects? ... i.e. to ‘visual imagery’?

this dynamic emerges from the fact that each individual is uniquely situated in a spatial-relational sense and is allowing their behaviour to be guided by the (evanescent or purely relational) shape of space as they see and feel it. within the crowd dynamic there is no sense of ‘time’, ... no-one is deciding to turn left or right according to some time-based (i am supposed to be at this spot at this time and that spot at that time); i.e. the participants experience the dynamic as purely spatial relational. so how do reduce this complexity coming from the spatial-relational behaviour guiding associated with the awareness of each individual of his unique situational inclusion within the dynamic? we lower a hook from a helicopter and pull ONE of the participants up above the crowd and equip him with a timepiece whereupon he becomes an EXCLUDED OBSERVER as contrasted with an INCLUDED EXPERIENCER. if his x,y,z,t framed observations of the visual dynamics are particularly diligent and detailed, we call this sky-hook observer a ‘scientist’.

our scientist has removed the intrinsic spatial-relational (self-referential) nature of the included experiencer of the dynamic and re-cast it in terms of ‘objects moving THROUGH SPACE in time’. he has objectified SPACE and made it into an empty container that provides a field of play or a theatrical stage within which the main show has now become the time-based actions and transactions of independent assertive objects.

purged from this scientific excluded observer view is the actual, real-world experience of the accommodator-assertor experience where one is included in the spatial-relational transformation, ... where the dynamic is emerging in the continuing present from the simultaneous mutual inner-outer parrying and thrusting of the participants in the collective.

of course, each of us can be a scientific excluded observer voyeur of our own experience by using this sky-hook and time-piece based mental modeling strategy, and in doing so we deny our, and our fellow participants felt experience and begin to build our intellectual plans and strategies on the basis of this now-portable reductive extraction, ... this shadow of felt experience, ... that, being, couched in x,y,z,t euclidian space and time framed terms (no longer being spatial-relational inclusion based) we can label ‘reality’. of course, this will apply whether or not the participants in the dynamic are ‘bumper-car robots’ that are programmed to respond solely to internal purpose and are unequipped for shape-of-space guided behaviour (which is simultaneous spatial relational and therefore impossible to program using a time-based sense-interpret-decide-act algorith). in other words, bumper-car robots have trouble with the notion of ‘wearing two hats at the same time’ (assertor and accommodator).

but our society has been busily using its scientific visual space reality and associated strategy and planning tools, to overcome this limitation in a different way, ... by instead, making each of us into bumper-car robots driven solely by our internal purpose, and thus avoiding the complexity of ‘having to’ accommodate in our asserting. (shades of the word-meanings of ‘selfish’ and ‘unselfish’ start to come into play here).

who could believe that an entire culture could accept this post-actualization visual space excluded observer version of reality that denies our inclusional felt experience as ‘reality’? after all, a lot of good things happen when we allow ourselves to be space-guiding accommodators as we actualize our internal purpose driven assertive potentials, ....resonances and synchronicities come out of no-where, as the wildgeese and the slime-mold and all manner of ecoethical collectives that have kept the faith with respect to nature’s powers of rewarding spatially have discovered.

anyhow, that is the next question that must be examined. how could we trade out the post-actualization time-and-euclidian-space-framed visual fact for the mutually defining asserting-accommodating of our felt inclusional experience?

the noun and verb based architecture of our language gives some clues here.

... continued below, ...

[emile]

... continued from above ....

for the resident of the coastal gulf of mexico, ... a hurricane; i.e. ‘weather’ is something one feels through the inclusional experiencing of it. on the tv weather map, the visual display orients us to the eye of the hurricane and the associated animated graphics of the weather forecaster extract the coordinate based time-trajectory of the hurricane together with a name e.g. ‘freda’ and a little whorl symbol, moving the whorl symbol across the map. in vygotsky’s psychology of objectification, phase two is where meaning comes from word-labelled entities through how people respond to them; e.g. people may flee a hurricane or barricade themselves and sweat it out. in this case, the hurricane is a condition of the hostspace one is included in. in the third phase of objectification, the object becomes abstract, seen as a thing in-its-own-independent-right, detached from the common hostspace, forgetting that, like individual in the crowd, its inside-outward asserting is mutually defining with the outside-inward accommodating of the hostspace dynamic. this reductive process is achieved by coupling a verb to the noun; i.e. ‘freda’ was one way to characterize the swirling condition of space that guided the behaviour of the included participants, ... but ‘freda moves (... towards gulfport etc.) now shifts the meaning of ‘freda’ from being sourced by the space-guided behaviours of people, ... to freda as being a causal agency, ... from a yin accommodating space that includes, ... to a yang assertive causal agent. meanwhile, we have forgotten about the reality that freda is simply a flow-feature within a yin/yang self-organizing hostspace transformation.

so it is not simply the naming of objects that confounds the mind as to what is ‘reality’, it is the noun-verb coupling of our phonetic, commercially-architect language that removes the yin from the yin/yang (assertive-accommodative) aspect of spatial-relational flow-features. from the child’s ‘mokkie’ which when uttered sets people in motion to fetch the child’s bottle, the attachment of a verb delivers to final step in objectification “bottles hold liquid’. this is the same form of geometric reduction from inner-outer acoustic space geometry to curvilinear visual space trajectory geometry as when we go from ‘let’s barricade our house to keep freda out’ to ‘freda is on a trajectory that is heading for our house’, ... even though it doesn’t seem like it because, now, ‘we know what a bottle is’ (i.e. it is so thoroughly objectified and animated that we flip from our experience of filling it and fetching it, to giving it powers of its own, e.g. the power endowed to an object-thing in-its-own-right to ‘hold liquid’. but does the lake ‘hold water’? or is the lake simply a geometro-dynamical feature of the dynamical hostspace? would a ‘chair’ still retain its property of holding the weight of people if it were on a planet where there were no people? to what extent can we define objects that have properties in-their-own-right?

on reflection, one is forced to conclude that going from vygotsky’s phase two, where the meaning of an object springs from the behaviours it induces in people (e.g. the invisible boundary of a nation-object, the US), to phase three where the object is given abstract meaning in-its-own-right by coupling it with a verb (e.g. the US has launched an invasion of Iraq) is a reduction from a mutually-defining yin/yang dynamic to a one-sided yang dyanmic of the same sort as in the case of hurricane freda. the fact is that people had evolved a dynamical inner-outer balance with the weather, building shelters and finding ways to heat and cool their home etc. etc. so that the response to freda was not something totally new, but simply a disruption of the dynamical balance between the included assertive individual and including accommodative hostspace. the global collective or hostspace dynamic is in a continuing quest to sustain dynamical equilibrium; i.e. the ‘dynamical equilibrium’ is the base case. like the crowd dynamic, the accommodative assertive mutual defining is the ‘steady state’ and if a certain individual or group start to become more assertive and less accommodating, this does not justify taking the objectification of this agency from its yin/yang condition in phase two, where it pushes off from the spatial dynamic it is included in (i.e. where is it a feature of the evolving hostspace dynamic), to its purely yang condition in phase three, where it is seen as if asserting in-its-own-right.

reflection will show that the coupling of the verb to the noun endows the named entity with the power of absolute motion. absolute motion, as we know from physics, is an observer-imposed illusion that derives from imposing the simplifying ‘framing’ convention of absolute space and absolute (universal) time on our mental/scientific model, ... that is not imposed on nature (poincaré).

thus the simplifying conventionalism of imposing absolute space and time framing, as in physics, is bound up in our language-game-playing as well, and when we take the personification of powers of our natural hostspace such as ‘freda’, and add a verb to empower it with ‘absolute motion’ in-its-own-right, we are constructing a mental model that makes our inclusional experience appear far more simple than it actually is, in the manner that a polynomial of degree one is simpler than a polynomial of degree two; (i.e. we reduce inner-outer mutual defining assertive-accommodative experience to the curvilinear trajectories of independent objects within an abstract euclidian empty space of infinite extent).

i don’t know if this helps with your goal to ‘figure it out’ but it seems to me that when we talk, we mix and match articulations that sometimes deal with the inner-outer geometro-dynamics of felt experience (acoustic space inclusional experience) and sometimes with the absolute curvilinear trajectory assertive motion of objects (visual space perception) of the excluded voyeur observer (the guy on the helicopter sky hook).

[Carol Massey]

thank you emile. I'll have to reflect on this a little. Be back soon to share my thoughts with you...

thinking about whorls, nested heirarches, and such....

Yes, my life has been an experience of syncronistic events for many many years, and I spend as much time in an unbounded state as I do in a (ego) bounded one....there are those who would define this diffusion of awareness as psychotic, but i think they are simply misinformed, or assume that any possibility to remain sane and functioning in the world can not be done in such an expanded state of awareness.

Well, I happen to disagree, and contrare, I think that it may be the only way that anything of a redemptive nature can be accomplished in this place which is semi-conscious.

More later....thank you again for the stimulating dialogue.

[Carol Massey]

[emile:]i don’t know if this helps with your goal to ‘figure it out’ but it seems to me that when we talk, we mix and match articulations that sometimes deal with the inner-outer geometro-dynamics of felt experience (acoustic space inclusional experience) and sometimes with the absolute curvilinear trajectory assertive motion of objects (visual space perception) of the excluded voyeur observer (the guy on the helicopter sky hook).

By semi-conscious, I am referring to the exclusionary way that the western world, in particular, views life via visual space perception. Without having at the ready all the descriptive words which you have used to describe the host-space, or acoustic space inclusional experience, it is something that I discovered for myself a long time ago, and in one respect it has made my life much richer, yet, I have long lived with the feeling of being a little whorl, and sometimes, feelings of living outside of the conventional view of life.

Although, I have felt at home in nature because I could see that there were harmonies shared between me and it, that were mutually supportive. For example, I love to garden, I take care of the soil, and it in return, yields an abundance of vegatation for me. But the signs are so obvious that the majority of people do not even consider life as reciprocity in a living system.

An example that made only a backpage newsworthy item a few months ago was that fisheries biologists in Colorado are alarmed at recent findings that more than 50 white bass have been found to have fully developed male and female sexual organs. It is alarming because what they have suspected for ten years has suddenly taken a sharp spike in the numbers of fish affected, and the reason they give is the huge amount of synthetic hormones (birth control pills) that are flooding our water supply, were these naturally occuring hormones, they would breakdown but the synthetic ones do not, so the cummulative effect is having a diastrous effect on the aquatic life of our water systems.....and yet when I ask people that I come in contact with what they thought about these findings, only rarely had anyone ever heard of such a thing. In nature, this visually-interpreted world goes about to destroy habitat for life at lightening speed with the destruction of rain forest, depletion of the ozone layer, or white bass in the platt river in colorado, and I think there are still few people who are aware of the effects of these thoughtless actions, never realizing that what is done to nature is likewise having a negative impact on humankind as well.

And then, I find it amazing that the collective visual space perception view of the world holds to many strange ideas, such as in this world with the need for good parenting, and so many young children who are homeless and without a family support system, yet, adoption is something that is elevated, meaning out of reach for many people because of the $$ that going through the hoops to satisfy all the legalities that have been tapped into the system, siphoning off the process for purely selfish reasons...that is deplorable. Reminds me of the comments that you made regarding the 'insurance' business..the same thing...a rampant system meeting very few real needs and the prolific disregard for generating a healthy system whereby these children who are adrift can easily re-enter a family environment.

And the medical 'system' which is fast becoming an elitist organization which administers its service, principally in the name of 'not for profit' service industry, yet profits to such an extent that it must grow its way out geographically to maintain its tax-exempt status.

And now on the news, I'm hearing that the princes of the church are sequestering themselves today to choose a new pope while the western world waits for a new spiritual leader.

Just sharing a few of these things that seem to be small whorls that are accepted as 'normal' within a visually perceiving system..

And now the news is reporting a massive wave 70 feet high hit a cruise ship (I missed where it happened)...the hostspace is also reactionary I'm thinking??? If the present is not a loud and clear call for gentle action....I don't know what is!

I hope this better explains my unfinished post of last evening, as I had to leave my computer rather abruptly, and likewise left my thoughts in something of a lurch...apologies for doing that, emile.