|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 4100
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: Episode 7: Fuller & the Hidden Nature of Space |
  |
|
Special Guest: Just0
Justin Lawless - 'The Hidden Nature of Space'
So What IS Space? That's the question we were left with after our
discussion with Milo Wolff on his Wave Structure Theory Of Matter.
He explained how all particles were just the resultant from the interaction
of In Waves and Out Waves. But what of the medium through which these
waves propogate? We must solve the mystery of the Nature of Space itself.
Justin Lawless ( Just0 on the Forum ) discusses the work of Buckminister
Fuller (inventor of the Geodesic dome) and how his deep understanding
of number and volume holds the key to understanding Space.
And so we move one step closer to solving the nature of the Universe,
and closer too to realizing our individual scientifically-proven immortality.
Audio Mp3
Click to Play or
Right-Click to Download
DSL mp3 
http://www.breakfornews.com/treecn/audio/TreeIncarnation070105a.mp3
Dialup mp3
http://www.breakfornews.com/treecn/audio/TreeIncarnation070105.mp3
Show Graphics
http://www.treeincarnation.com/audio/JustinLawless.htm
Last edited by Fintan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:24 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 838
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: Feelin Fuller! |
|
|
I am f*cking flipping out!
I only had time for the first half hour today, but maybe that's just as well - I don't know how much more I could handle right now. Makes going back to work seem pretty boring though...
Five minutes ago, I was jumping up and down screaming, "GRAVITY!! ELECTRICITY! GRAVITY!! ELECTRICITY!!"
Before that, it was, "OH MY GOD! SATELLITE DISHES!"
Luckily, no one within earshot is alarmed by my outbursts... anymore.
This sphere based geometry is obviously the basis of like... jeez everything...
Really makes me think of the implications of the base 10 numerical system, and the 90 degree angles formed by the accountant's crucifix.
I wonder how a 'base 10' mindset interfaces with a 'base 6' universe...
Time, calendar, tempered music scale etc...
It appears to be the basis of alchemical numerology and 'mystery school' stuff too.
squaring the circle...
Anyway, I'll attempt a cogent response later, when I've contained the brush fire in my brain - oh yeah, and listened to the second half. 
Excellent work, guys - |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nat
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 851
Location: minime-rica
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
totally 'effing' amazing
Last edited by Nat on Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrewTerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: Calendar = Currency of Consciousness |
|
|
| Jerry Fletcher wrote: | | ...when I've contained the brush fire in my brain... |
Jerry - what are you using for those 'brush fires' these days?
After Jerry's comment I feel compelled to add the following on time and calendars-
| Drew Terry wrote: |
Currency of Consciousness
The units of any calendar (days-years) are just like $ dollars we spend called 'money' -- except our consciousness spends time by spending money.
Time is Money = Illusion we take for reality.
Is that saying that Money is primary to Time?
No. This is backwards. A subtle but critical deception.
The truth is Time is PRIMARY to money.
Time is a dimension separate from money. Money has been a (very poor) way to value Time. In time, we are all equal. We all have an equal amount to spend - every day. At the end of the day whatever we did not spend is gone forever.
Money is not a dimension that exists out of mind.
We create consciousness by our calendar. The calendar we pay the most attention will be the consciousness we most value. The units of the calendar are therefore our Currency of Consciousness.
 Time only equals money if we focus our attention on the value of time in $ dollars, the Gregorian calendar.
|
Time for some brush fires! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 303
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 303
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
thass yer lot(282 pages in the book)....he was a journalist too.
Life is good.
Dawn,central London,foxes yelping at each other.
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:22 pm Post subject: numbers |
|
|
Thanks for the feedback guys, I'm amazed that we compressed so much
into just one show. Fintans a genius with communicating information,
thanks Fintan ...and of course thanks to Kathy for the support.
WOW, Love the book pages rob, theres a helluva lot in that... Cheers
Jerry, your getting me thinking about numbers again... and i'm terrible at
math, I don't even know my multiplication tables from school  
(I skipped that day), but I still find there are amazing patterns in numbers
at the simplest level.
And after looking into it, maybe we should call it an octave system, like in
music.
Heres a nice way to think about...
| Quote: | How many fingers do you have in total.... ten right?
Nope... You have EIGHT fingers and TWO thumbs.
Sounds like an old joke, but wait, there's method to the madness.
When we look at what we define as a finger it becomes clear why such a distinction is made between fingers and thumbs.
Afterall it's the opposable thumb that lends the ability to effectively manipulate matter and not fingers.
This may sound like word play of no real consequence but through neglecting to understand the context of our words, suble meanings may be overlooked.
The thumbs are the only digits on your hand which have the muscles located in the hand, whereas the fingers have their muscles located in the forearm.
This is why the thumbs have so much flexability, they have a lot more angular flexibility than the fingers.
The baseTen system has ten characters analogous to our ten digits on our hands, with these ten characters (0-9) all accounting is done.
There is a cyclic pattern in the way the numbers progress from zero through to nine (notice the word 'nine' sounds like 'none' and relates to german words like nein etc.), and just like the thumbs, the 0 and 9 represent angular flexability, they are both the beggining and the end of the cycle.
There are 8 Frequencies between the angularly oriented(720°?) 0 and 9 , just like our eight fingers and two thumbs.
So maybe this would be a good way of looking at the baseten system..
|
Taking a look at what we experience in relation to angle and frequency is
great fun IMO.
I got thinking about this in relation to our fingers and thumbs through the
section in Fullers 'Synergetics' on Numerology, it shows some beautiful
patterns in numbers, which i'm still trying to get my head around. Check it out.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s12/p0000.html
Ok thats enough...more l8tr...
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 4100
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: Breakthrough |
|
|
Breakthrough
Ahem.
Twelve years of analysis born of a relentless curiousity --just paid off.
I came close to figuring this a couple of weeks ago, but the model was
too simplistic, not to mention wrong...... However, just as this Fuller
presentation audio was completed, I finally discovered the actual
mechanism of immortality.
No biggie. 
Obvious in reterospect as these things always are, but who's complaining.
And so I urge you to pay special attention to this audio. My new insight
is based on Fuller's work, and Justin has done a great job of helping us to
grasp Bucky's astonishing understanding of structure.
I look back now on my early-2000 ramblings in the right general direction.
Wow, I've learned a lot since then, and I hope you have too. But I am still
a bit in shock at this discovery. I expected to uncover some rather vague
idea of how immortality functionally works --but I figured the details would
be uncertain. Some kind of holographic mumbo-jumbo.
But it turns out the mechanism is explicitly clear now, it's easy to grasp
and it also resolves some key questions about the structure of the
universe and the brain/mind. Gosh.
Needless to say, more soon.......
I was meaning to post these amazing photos, which I took in the
garden here at dawn on the First of January, 2007. Considering this
latest breakthrough, it looks like this rainbow was pretty prophetic.
2007's gonna be good.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Fletcher
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 838
Location: Studio BS
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: End of the rainbow? |
|
|
| Quote: | I was meaning to post these amazing photos, which I took in the
garden here at dawn on the First of January, 2007. Considering this
latest breakthrough, it looks like this rainbow was pretty prophetic.
2007's gonna be good. |
It only took you six days to find the pot of gold ...Congratulations
Looking forward to this breakthrough, big time ... when you're ready.
Ready, yet?
| Just0 wrote: | | And after looking into it, maybe we should call it an octave system, like in music. |
Damn dude! That's the shizzit!
'Music' is a language that already exists to describe the interaction of waveforms, and the harmonic geometry of musical sound - timbre, scale, chord and key center.
Harmonic interaction is synergy - the myriad of harmonic shapes formed by modulating sine waves of various frequencies.
Wow - it really fits well with the perceptual 'feeling' of how music 'works' harmonically, and Bucky's concepts of tension and compression.
The I, or Tonic chord, is Unity, rest, lack of motion or tension. Subdominant (ii, IV) - represents motion, increasing tension from Unity. Dominant (V) represents maximum tension from Tonic, and motion from Unity. Return to the I chord, and the tension feels 'released' - back at Unity, after completing a little 'journey' away from the 'source'.
Ain't nothin but The Blues, baby....
oh oh... Fire alert! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: Geometry is Music :) |
|
|
| Jerry Fletcher wrote: |
'Music' is a language that already exists to describe the interaction of waveforms, and the harmonic geometry of musical sound - timbre, scale, chord and key center.
Harmonic interaction is synergy - the myriad of harmonic shapes formed by modulating sine waves of various frequencies.
Wow - it really fits well with the perceptual 'feeling' of how music 'works' harmonically, and Bucky's concepts of tension and compression.
The I, or Tonic chord, is Unity, rest, lack of motion or tension. Subdominant (ii, IV) - represents motion, increasing tension from Unity. Dominant (V) represents maximum tension from Tonic, and motion from Unity. Return to the I chord, and the tension feels 'released' - back at Unity, after completing a little 'journey' away from the 'source'.
Ain't nothin but The Blues, baby....
oh oh... Fire alert! |
LOL, nice1 dude.... now if only I knew the lingo of musical notation, scales,
chords etc.
I can get the feel of it alright, for me it could be simplified into patterns of
frequency ascending/descending, tied together with angular harmony....
thats my best shot at it :roll:
Yeah, music is synergy alright
Heres a bit of an update on the synergetic geometry.
The Isotropic Vector Matrix (IVM) known in architecture as a 'space frame'
or octet truss was known to Alexander Graham Bell who developed
man-lifting-kites using this octahedron/tetrahedron configuration.
| Quote: | Fuller on Bell
According to archivist Bonnie DeVarco, who did the research for this page, BFI has two original wooden tetrahedra built by Alexander Graham Bell, given to him by members of the Bell family. Fuller's own notes on these artifacts read as follows (someday maybe we'll have some pictures too):
1. This tetrahedral cell was made on Beinn Breah, Nova Scotia, Canada to be used in the construction of Alexander Graham Bell's man-carrying kites. Given with great pleasure to Buckminster Fuller by Helen Pencoast, Alexander Graham Bell's great granddaughter. 3/15/75
2. This box contains a second tetrahedron made by the hands of Alexander Graham Bell for a man-carrying kite and presented to Buckminster Fuller by Bell's great grandson, Grosvenor. December 1977.
An Interview with R. Buckminster Fuller
Q. It seems to me that Bell's tetrahedron, which he developed while working on kites, is very like your geodesic structure?
A. Exactly the same.
Q. When you developed your structures, did you know about the work of Alexander Graham Bell?
A. I did not. I was astonished to learn about it later. It is the way nature behaves, so we both discovered nature. It isn't something you invent. You discover. I had the great advantage of being allowed to look through all of his notes in Washington at the National Geographic [Society]. His grandson had me admitted to his beautiful notebooks and I found where he comes to the actual discovering of it. The thing he was interested in was how to make a stronger airplane wing. He was probably taken with Langley [aviation pioneer Samuel Pierpont Langley] and all the others and he was trying to understand how he might do something better. And he comes to discovering omni-triangulation. I call it the octahedron-tetrahedron truss. Then of course he went right on with his kites but I knew absolutely nothing about it until I had discovered the same thing myself.
Of course I knew about Alexander Graham Bell discovering the telephone from my childhood. That was a great childhood event. I was born in 1895 and I remember the great excitement over the telephone. My Boston Suburb home telephone number was "Milton Ten." So Alexander Graham Bell's name was very prominent in my life, but it occurred only in relation to the telephone. I'd been at what I discovered possibly fifteen years before somebody said, "Didn't you know Alexander Graham Bell did it?"
I didn't learn about Bell until after the geodesic dome, and the geodesic dome comes quite a long time after what I call the synergetic mathematics -- the way the spheres of unit radius close-pack. You just take two spheres and they just touch one another 00 that's all. You nest a third one down between the two and you get a triangle. Then you nest another on top and you get a tetrahedron. If now you take two triangular sets of three unit-radius spheres and nest one on top of the other, you will make an octahedron unit. If you finally make two layers of spheres in closest packing, the spheres are the vertexes of the octahedron-tetrahedron truss. Many such closest-packed, unit-radius sphere layers, nested upon one another, produce the vertexes of what is known in physics as the "isotropic vector matrix." I've discovered it is the way atoms are packing. So it seems to be fundamental to nature. Absolutely fundamental to nature.
My first objective structural experimenting occurred in my pre-eyeglass, blurred-vision, 1899 kindergarten. The teacher gave us equilength toothpicks and semidried peas. She told us to make structures -- houses. All the other children, none of whom had eye trouble, put together rectilinear box houses. The peas were strong enough to act as angle-holding gussets. Not having visualized the rectilinearity about me, I used only my tactile sense. My finger muscles found that only the triangle had a natural shape-holding capability. I therefore felt my way into producing an octahedron-tetrahedron truss assembly. I, of course, knew naught of such names.
I can remember the teacher, Miss Williams, asking other teachers to come and look at the strange structure I had produced. Fifty years later I heard from that teacher, who clearly remembered that strange event. Just two years ago her grandniece spoke to me, telling me of her great-aunt's death and of her great-aunt's remembering that 1899 event to the end. It was this experience which undoubtedly started me off at fifteen to look for nature's own structural coordinate system.
Q. When you were a boy, did you think of Bell as a sort of universal genius?
A. I only knew about the telephone. The way I was being educated and the amount of news that really got around in those days was pretty loose, and I didn't have any idea about his being the kind of really great scientist that he is. When I had the privilege once of his notebooks, I just marveled. . . His notebooks are almost like the Leonardo books.
From an interview with Dorothy Harley Eber, on telephone, June 29, 1978 in the Prologue to Genius At Work: Images of Alexander Graham Bell by Dorothy Harley Eber ©1982 Viking Press
http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/docs/bellnote.html |
Alexander Graham Bell and the Octet Truss
Virgo Supercluster shows IVM geometry
Universe is Finite, "Soccer Ball"-Shaped, Study Hints
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrewTerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: Just a rainbow |
|
|
| Quote: | Iris, Goddess of The Rainbow
Iris was the Greek goddess of the rainbow, a messenger of the gods, like Hermes. She descended to earth on a rainbow, which touched both realms, representing a communication between the heavenly and the earthly.
Iris appears often in Virgil's Aeneid, as in, "The maiden Iris hurried on her way, along her rainbow with a thousand colors . . ."
The Rainbow in Painting
Innes is considered the leader of the American Barbizon School. He imbued his landscapes with a sense of divine presence and rainbows had a spiritual significance for him. Note how they give a spiritual feeling to the scene by connecting the earth with the heavens.
This illustrates a recurring theme: The union (UNIT-Y) of earthly & divine.
The Rainbow. c. 1878. George Innes (1825-1894) (New Janson p. 715)
Janson, H.W. History of Art. Fifth Edition. NY: Abrams, 1995.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nat
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 851
Location: minime-rica
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this concept of there being no such thing as 'one' (or put another way, 360 degrees/one cycle/one observation being useless) is, pardon my french, well, that's fuckin' awesome
...any time i've thought 'you're being weird now' and stopped using mirrors, standing on my head or going through that second rotation, what i've been trying to do has not worked out...i know now which of the two options is really the 'odd one'
Last edited by Nat on Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:14 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrewTerry
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| matt wrote: |  "...any time i've thought 'you're being weird now' and stopped using mirrors, standing on my head or going through that second rotation, what i've been trying to do has not worked out...i know now which of the two options is really the 'odd one' " |
matt-
I am curious (and this is convoluted for sure, ok? )
about your awareness, did you:
| option #1 wrote: | | all by yourself start feeling self-conscious about the 'mirror/headstand/720 routine' and go with the option that you knew then never worked out, but did it anyway (perhaps due to comments from other people or fear of potentially negative feedback - in any case, the mental judgment on your part being that the risk of 'negative feedback' did not outweigh the likely benefit to positive feedback, especially positive feedback due to superior results; |
OR
| option #2 wrote: | | did you not realize until now that you were unconsciously feeling 'weird' at which point you went with the 'more normal' option that would, unfortunately and, despite the highest hopes best effort and noble intentions, would just somehow not seem to work out - and until now you were unaware of the option other than what would really be the best (the 'mirror/headstand/720' routine) for you? |
Don't worry about ignoring that if it doesn't resonate with you - I will certainly understand!
Thanks for your input - always makes ME think, and everyones always glad to know we are not the only ones who are weird. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nat
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 851
Location: minime-rica
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| option #3 ! wrote: | | i started to feel self-conscious about the 'mirror/headstand/720 routine' and go with the option that i knew then never worked out as intuitively and spontaneously, and did so due to comments from other people such as 'you're a spaceman weirdo' negative feedback |
i all too easily defaulted to i 'must' be wrong
once you start going with your instincts, it is an almost exponential growth system, 'mainstream academia' hasn't got a clue and is a lost cause in comparison. 720 degrees is just the start
there's still much to unlearn/learn/rediscover, refine, and evolve, and why the hell should it be any different ?
Last edited by Nat on Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:17 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just0
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| matt wrote: | | i started to feel self-conscious about the 'mirror/headstand/720 routine' and go with the option that i knew then never worked out as intuitively and spontaneously, and did so due to comments from other people such as 'you're a spaceman weirdo' negative feedback |
Nice one matt, I get what your saying with your 720° experience, it's
those intuitive feelings that most people are scared of IMO, simply
because it doesnt fit into the literal rules and models of society.
It's sad really, people are in so much fear of being wrong, that they need
to latch on to what seems to be the 'norm'. So much so, that they happily
go along with the rest of the crowd, playing silly mind games, going
through the rituals of yesteryear, clinging to the obsolete, centuries old
ideas.
| matt wrote: | once you start going with your instincts, it is an almost exponential growth system, 'mainstream academia' hasn't got a clue and is a lost cause in comparison. 720 degrees is just the start
there's still much to unlearn/learn/rediscover, refine, and evolve, and why the hell should it be any different ?  |
720° IS just the start, theres plenty more learning/growing that needs to
be done and allowing ourselves to learn from mistakes is an important
part.
I had workmates that were much older than me say things like "young
and niave" as a kind of dig on my optimistic, enthusiastic attitude, it was
kind of like jokingly saying, "just waite a few years, the system will break
you down".
I liked Fullers Moto at the opening of synergetics, "Dare to be niave",
it sums it up nicely IMO.
Heres a great piece from synergetics that details some of fullers
definitions of what space is.
He's got a way with words. 
| Quote: | 526.00 Space
526.01 There is no universal space or static space in Universe. The word space is conceptually meaningless except in reference to intervals between high-frequency events momentarily "constellar" in specific local systems. There is no shape of Universe. There is only omnidirectional, nonconceptual "out" and the specifically directioned, conceptual "in." We have time relationships but not static-space relationships.
526.02 Time and space are simply functions of velocity. You can examine the time increment or the space increment separately, but they are never independent of one another.
526.03 Space is the absence of events, metaphysically. Space is the absence of energy events, physically.
526.04 The atmosphere's molecules over any place on Earth's surface are forever shifting position. The air over the Himalayas is enveloping California a week later. The stars now overhead are underfoot twelve hours later. The stars themselves are swiftly moving in respect to one another. Many of them have not been where you see them for millions of years; many burnt out long ago. The Sun's light takes eight minutes to reach us. We have relationships__but not space.
526.05 You cannot get out of Universe. You are always in Universe. (See Sec. 320, Scenario Universe. See Sec. 524, Novent.)
526.10 Systematic Inclusion and Exclusion of Space
[526.10-526.35 Space Scenario]
526.101 Space is the antithesis of solid. Both are misnomers. Solid (or mass) refers to locals of too high an event frequency for our physical members to penetrate or conceivably tune in. Space refers to locals of an event frequency per volume too low for our apprehending equipment to tune in.
526.11 Space is systemic inadvertency. Space is all the observer's untuned-in information.
526.12 Space is the inescapable awareness of unaccounted otherness: the otherness is unconsidered but always and only co-occurrent with system considerations.
526.13 Space is finite as a complementary of finite Scenario Universe. As a co- occurrent, complementary function of finite but non-unitarily-conceptual and non- unitarily-tune-in-able Scenario Universe, space is finite. Space does not have definable properties. Only systems have definable characteristics.
526.14 The cognitive awareness of space derives from definition of system characteristics whose topological interrelationships inherently and oherently divide Universe into insideness microcosmic space and outsideness macrocosmic space. Systems have 32 topological characteristics (enumerated at Sec. 1044).
526.15 Systems capture. Systems exclude. Systems capture all the special case, twilight-zone, only-grossly-tuned-in but as-yet-differentially-undefinable, outwardly neighboring "otherness" systems as well as all the inward, untunable, nonsystem space. Systems exclude the twilight zone of only-partially-tuned-out, no-longer-differentially- definable, outwardly neighboring otherness systems as well as all the outward, untunable, nonsystem space. Systems capture all the infratunable, concentric tween-waves that are too-high-frequency for experience-intuited-expectancy space nothingness and exclude all the ultratunable, concentric tween-waves that are too-lowfrequency for experience- intuited-expectancy space nothingness.
526.16 "Solids" are the frequencies that are too high for differential tune-in-ability. Space is the integral of all the frequencies that are too low for tune-in-ability.
526.17 Included spaces and excluded spaces are both concentric. Tuning = dismissal of irrelevancies. Those too large and of too low frequency are dismissed omnidirectionally. Those too small and of too high frequency are dismissed inwardly. The tuning phenomenon is either inward or omnidirectional .
526.18 Insideness is the captured nothingness. Insideness becomes the conceptually embraced, system-defined space. Outsideness is the conceptual-system-defined, outwardly uncaptured nothingness. Without systems there can be no space awareness. (Compare Sec.1053.824.) Systems are awareness concepts. Space is nonconceptual awareness.
526.19 Space is a finite but nondefinable complementary relationship function of the definability of singular or plural system characteristics and their interrelationships. System is all the relevant thought, all the think-about-ableness. Space is all the unthink-about-able irrelevancy.
526.191 Space is the aggregate of all the vector equilibrium nulls of all magnitudes and frequencies of all isotropic vector matrixes always potentially articulatable in all directions from any point of origin.
526.20 Visual Aspects of Space
526.21 Where there is no radiation, there is no light. If it had always been "night," I doubt that people would have invented the word space. At night you have no sense of otherness__no sense of space complementation of system-defining limits. Space is a "visual" word, touch being an ultra-highfrequency "visualization."
526.22 Space is concentric and multisystem partitionable. Space is never linear. It takes four events to define three intervals. The special case events appear to be linear only because they are always successively experienced. Potential periodicity__special case, time-size__is initially cognizable when recurring after the same interval as that recalled as existing between the first and second similar systemic events experienced, but only upon the third recurrence of the similar systemic experience event do we have four similar systemic events to define three similar intervals__ergo, to confirm the periodicity that could only be intuitively anticipated after the third similar event experience had marked a second similar between-events interval.
526.23 It takes a minimum of four similar-system-experiencing event recurrences to produce three similar between-event intervals and differentially excite a recollected pattern cognition that confirms the periodicity__a periodicity that was only intuitively and speculatively anticipated at the time of the third similar-system experiencing. The confirmatory fourth event and its third similarly intervalled recurrence cognition in turn introduce the inherently minimum sixness of convergent interrelationships of any four subdifferentiable points of tunably identifiable system experiences-which four, together, always define the four corners of a larger system. (Compare Secs. 265.08-13 265.08-13, 501.24, 987.073, and 1033.601. )
526.24 Our eyesight is stroboscopic at 60 cycles per second. Because of the lags in apprehension we are not aware of the "between-takes" intervals. We do not sensingly realize that the nothingness is concentrically permeating the concentrically waved recurrent somethingnesses.
526.25 The phenomenon death is as yet ultratunable system experience. We have no way of knowing whether any single, dual, or triple recurring experience events are to be followed by a fourth, as-yet-unexperienced, similar event which, if and when it occurs, may constitute a system-tuning-in, live realization of the omnioccurring, infratunable, tunable, and ultratunable systems' concentric intervalling. Death is intervalling. Life and death are always and only co-occurrent, life being concentrically successive tuning-ins and death being the as yet nontuned-in. (See Secs. 262.10 262.10 and 531.10.)
526.26 Out is any-directional. You go in to go out because out is not only any direction but is all directions__electromagnetically speaking it is "tuned-out." (See Sec. 905.21.) In is what we are thinking about now. In is the momentary reality into which we are tuned. All the rest is for the moment tuned-out but equally real as the information or experience is progressively tuned-in.
526.27 Physics finds that Universe has no solid things surrounded by, and interspersed with, space. Life is an inventory of tuning-ins and tuning-outs of experience. Birth is the first tuning in; death may not be the last.
526.30 Systematic Communication of Space
526.31 Space is the invisible complementation of the cognitive system. Like the rubber glove, cognition is left hand; space is inside-out right hand, and vice versa.
526.32 Space is the unconsidered complement of the conceptually considered episode and its only neighboringly overlapped episodes of Scenario Universe. Space is the untuned-in complement of considerability and conceptuality.
tuned & untuned
in & out
526.33 Special case is always tune-in-able. Special case is imaginable by brain. Conceptuality is a function of mind. Conceptuality is a priori independent of special case frequency tunability. Conceptuality is generalized, and the space complementation of generalized conceptuality is generalized. Space is generalization. Death is the omnidirectional otherness of as-yet physically realized Scenario Universe. Death is the as- yet unborn set of all the unconsidered special cases of all the as-yet undiscovered__ergo, as-yet-unconsidered__generalized principles.
526.34 Conceptuality and its complementary space generalizations do not account or embrace the a priori mystery, the integrity of eternally regenerative Scenario Universe. All the inherent, concentric, systemic conceptuality, its internal spatial intervals, and its external spatial embracement are altogether both subordinate and supraordinate to the nonconsiderability of such a priori mystery as . . . How come Universe?
526.35 Systems divide all of Universe. Thought divides all of Universe. Thought is inherently systemic__whose inherency always has its oherency of space. Only systems can communicate space. Space is systems-defined-and-deferred awareness of potentially tunable otherness.
Synergetics-500.00-Conceptuality |
_________________
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
