Pages

Showing posts with label Aristotelean Arche. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aristotelean Arche. Show all posts

Thursday, May 08, 2014

Death is Not Final

You all have to know the hammer analogy was made aware to me about a week before this debate took place. Also,  a YouTube label given to this demonstration was posted under "gaming" so I find that kind of funny given the seriousness of this debate.



I pushed Number 1.  But, you also know my bias right so I did not think providing this image would hurt in an way given that you already have some insight into my perspective? My opinion at Sean's Blog as well pertaining to this subject.

So as I am going through the debate I thought it necessary to keep a running tab for my self so as to see from what position one is speaking.  So now that I know Sean is speaking from a Naturalist point of view. I will continue.

A metaphysics that goes beyond the commitments of science is simply unsupported by the best available evidence.[27]
—Lynne Rudder Baker, Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective

 A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.
— Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52–53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9.

Okay I am at 36:58 of the video so I have had the opportunity to listen to the four speakers. I have to say oh my gosh, there is a lot here to consider, and a lot I have already considered. So I need to respond to that first part of the video.

As life calls us to do our things in the day to day, I also have a schedule today, so this posting will be broken up in terms of my response as to the first part of the video. Please be patient. It also gives me time to think about what has been said.

I want to open with the quote Sean responded too, of Eben Alexanders of Einstein. So give me time to drawn this comment out of Eben's book.

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks  should be. -Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

I am still ay 36:58 so I needed to finish what  what I have surmised in that first part so I can go on with the video. Below is something that I had written to my Aunt,  so hope she is okay with me repeating it here.  You will see that entry below. It basically sums up the first part of the debate for me.

As I was finishing listening to Steven Novella speak, the quote of Einstein, now gotten from Eben's book, Proof of Heaven under Prologue,  and response given by Sean Carroll was a matter of fact to the whole first part to me as it was for Sean to Eben's Alexanders use of the quote.

Something also interesting to me was Sean's admittance of wanting to believe (that death is not final) but at this point not being able too.That said a lot to me, and in the aspect of being a scientist,  I believe what he is saying.:) So I will continue on with the rest of the video now.

***
 In a note to my Aunt.

Hi Aunt Celine,

 I am a bit of a science buff when it comes to what is currently happening in science. I too had been reading about the NDE for quite a long time as well. Moody agrees with you, about science not quite ready. Since I have studied other aspects of consciousness research, it is my hope that one day we will understand this debate, as a recognition of who we all are as spiritual beings, in a physical body.

What Moody proposes is the beginning of a true dialogue based on logic and reason, and these stem from philosophy. So it is important to see the discussion in terms of where this dialogue can truly begin. Moody mentions pseudoscience and from that, his journey through philosophy. He is trying to set up a credible debate.

 I read Eben Alexander's book as well so I knew where he was coming from, as well I have been following Sean Carroll's science for sometime now. The only one that was sort of new to me was that Steve Novella, and as a neuroscientist, I am open to what he has to say. I must say then I am also a bit of philosopher that has had me venturing through aspect and developments about the Mind/ body debate that is going on, and that is where the science is saying that it is based on materialism. On my own, I have studied Plato and other philosophers.

 In order to accept materialism one has to believe, that consciousness is derived from the brain, while the other perspective is that the brain in my view, is what consciousness uses while the body is alive, but that consciousness can exist, once our body dies. That understanding is in contradiction to what science saids today, but I am saying to science, that they indeed do not have all the facts to make this conclusion even though they can simulate experience from manipulating the physical aspects of the body to produce the near death experience.

Religion has not helped me and I must say, that my upbringing within the Catholic Church has left much for me say, about its patriarchal construct, and how it falls short of providing support for what spiritual means to me. I hope you are not offended.

I do believe in a higher power, and I do believe that Heaven is capable in all of us now. In my education, I might of called it Symmetry, in the very beginning, and science has something to say about that. While I have a real study in reductionism, the work that has been going on, I believe eventually it will lead to an understanding within science, but it has to be developed, and in my view Moody's philosophical standpoint, is where we will start.

***

So I finished the rest of the video last night. There were somethings that were quite memorable to me that stood out.I wanted to quickly move to the end of the debate where each had an opportunity as they did in the beginning to give their last assessment as to why Death is Final, or not.

I was more focused on Sean's response and reiteration of respect for people and their beliefs. This was important to me. When Moody spoke of the work that he had been doing for the last forty years with regard to NDEs and the listening to people about these experiences, these were genuine stories of,  "Death was not Final"  for Moody. I was encouraged by the votes last night, not for which side supposedly won, but by the uncertainty(final 12%) as to the question of what remains as a definitive, as to Death is Final. These shows to me that people in the end still do not know, and that,  they could not be decisive. This to me,  leaves room for work to be done.

I also liked Sean Carroll's response too,  the responsibility of acceptance as to how one may look at life given the perspective of responsibility he has having accepted his position on Death is Final. Of course he might used,  when he was a child, as one might use as Moody did, as was his thrust to understand astronomy.

I believe this to be sincere, and such a question about death that would come to all in the child's mind, a determiner of what the future would bring for him as he sat on that panel. Not so much as a Skeptic full blooded, so as to be glib with the response of,  as if Steve Novella was the amazing Randi and waited for the bet that has not been collected. :) But to remain open, as the undecided results spoke toward, as if,  more information would be needed to make a final definitive statement.

So anyway, another moment stood out in regard to Sean Carroll's response to a woman about where the energy goes once we die. His analogy of a flame going out was like the hammer statement used above, as used in the repertoire of such a question about energy and death. What I liked about the response, was as to where it put the woman in mind. If you have ever come to the point of a logical constructive immobilizing one's position, as it was on the face this woman wore,  as to where the woman could go next. That final deductive state is an important one to me.

I have much more to say about reductionism and how that research is important to me as if the table would be permanent as the atom that make it up, would be a table ad infinitive. So as sure as, matter in all it's constitutions have been described, as to say I am pointing right a it?:) We are not objects like the table. The analogy of the narrative is always important as it is spoken, and as subjective and alone as it might seem there is the greater picture of the story of the NDEr.

I must say too, that the idea of reductionism as much as materialism, causes flinches in those who speak about spiritual things, would make one from that side speak about what is not reducible?  Since energy is an important topic and how we use configuration space to surmise  it's existence,  it becomes a classification of matter. I would assume there is much still to be ascertained.  I read the blogs of other scientists who are at the front with questions phenomenologically expressed that want to see where the science goes next. Just as we have been taken t the limits of where the identification of the Higg's operates and what that energy range is.


Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Freewill under Scrutiny

Photo courtesy of the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library.
 ΔpΔxh/2π

In contrast I seek to awaken a fair and good interpretation of the "I AM" as the intellect and, and about our choices.  How we make them, and how we can be mindful of them. So here in lies my understanding that, one's intellect must be in charge to refer to the one as sitting in a position not egotistically centered, but the ego in the "I am," egotistically centered.:) It can be Illusive as to pinpoint "the center." So God then,  is Symmetry, and Symmetry has been broken?


BEHOLDING beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities, for he has hold not of an image but of a reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may. Would that be an ignoble life? PLATO

It is never easy to understand the full scope of the question of,  by belief alone. So I sought here to try and give this Free Will some foundation.


Whether a particular thing happens, says Aristotle, may depend on a series of causes that
"goes back to some starting-point, which does not go back to something else. This, therefore, will be the starting-point of the fortuitous, and nothing else is the cause of its generation." Metaphysics Book VI 1027b12-14) See: The Cogito Model

The direct action,  according to my understanding is that one has "gained from experience."  So experience, is in a way "a value system" which I may use in order to understand those choices,  as well as,  to use that "information" to make decisions. In this way, I have set the causal affect for the future as to a determination with which causal chains must be linked back too, this original position??

  Pierre Curie (1894): “Asymmetry is what creates a phenomenon.”

So with a place in mind, as the intellect, we see what transpires as we "project into the future." So then, as to set the course of action dependent upon, the theory behind the ability of Free Will. This becomes a determinant feature in the link as a causal that is no longer left too, happen stance.


I suspect that will, qualia, meaning and intentionality will turn out to be understood to be aspects of nature. But I suspect that by the time we have achieved this our understanding of nature will be quite different. That is, I suspect that we will only succeed in reducing minds to atoms when we have revolutionized our understanding of atoms in some way presently inconceivable.

I only have an intuition about the first step in this process, which is to bring time and the present moment-the now-into science and make it central to physics and prior to law. By embracing presentism and the openness of the future we radically recast the context for understanding what it means for anything-rock or atom or mind-to be part of nature. Lee Smolin

If we trace back this idea of Indeterminacy, what do we find? And how shall we find such an exchange as getting to the heart of the problem as to say, " it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. " Einstein goes on to say that it is the theory that decides what it is that we can observe.
"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe. You must appreciate that observation is a very complicated process. The phenomenon under observation produces certain events in our measuring apparatus. As a result, further processes take place in the apparatus, which eventually and by complicated paths produce sense impressions and help us to fix the effects in our consciousness. Along this whole path - from the phenomenon to its fixation in our consciousness — we must be able to tell how nature functions, must know the natural laws at least in practical terms, before we can claim to have observed anything at all. Only theory, that is, knowledge of natural laws, enables us to deduce the underlying phenomena from our sense impressions. When we claim that we can observe something new, we ought really to be saying that, although we are about to formulate new natural laws that do not agree with the old ones, we nevertheless assume that the existing laws — covering the whole path from the phenomenon to our consciousness—function in such a way that we can rely upon them and hence speak of'observations'...Physics and Beyond (pg67)
(bold added by me for emphasis)

In truest sensibility of the individual then is to seek some relation as to what by nature allows such observance in consciousness, so as to be able too, make decisions. Then, as too, "covering the whole path from the phenomenon to our consciousness—function in such a way that we can rely upon them and hence speak of 'observations'. " Any new theory then has to have had a foundation(causal chains) with which it can move forward and built upon that experience. While I truly speak to the process of science so as to demonstrate Einstein's wording and ways,  I am also speaking to the consciousness that uses this same information.

Monday, December 28, 2009

A Correlation in Perception



This post will indeed seem quite odd. But as I told Phil I wanted to explain a principal behind all the language I used here as if it would appear to another if we assume another perspective.



Now we know how some of us who go the the extreme in science  like to think the basis of what we explain as a fictional story is correlative in the context of what we relay,  knows there is science that is factually represented to unfold.





Hathor , (Hwt Hr Egyptian for Horus's enclosure)[1], was an Ancient Egyptian goddess who personified the principles of love, motherhood and joy.[2] She was one of the most important and popular deities throughout the history of Ancient Egypt. Hathor was worshiped by Royalty and common people alike in whose tombs she is depicted as “Mistress of the West” welcoming the dead into the next life.[3]. In other roles she was a goddess of music, dance, foreign lands and fertility who helped women in childbirth.[3]


So I have to present something in story like form as was presented in the latest movie Avatar. This is to spark a historical look back in our own history, so as to know that we existed in cohabitation with beings that hold the basis of a thought pattern,  that is the basis of this blog. See how quickly one can move?



Temple of Hathor, Dendera
(click on image and take note of columns)

You have to look very carefully now throughout these artifacts in architectural design as to understand something quite unique about the the times and what some of these statue faces actually represented. See how these images are denoted amongst the Gods and Goddesses to understand that images reveal something unique about what the Sun and Moon mean in relation to each other and who was the Mother of them.

***

So as far back as I could see in our ancient minds, their was this attempt to define aspects of our characters in terms of the way we see color and sound that the crude attempts were signs of the wanting to understand something about our early history. This was with the likes of Newton who saw alchemy as a function descriptive of the world, was a must to perfecting the elements of  character toward the element of Gold as a quality of our characters. How the earth based on mineralogy formed according to some structure apparent,was to think that such an outward manifestation as to solidification in materiality could see such comparatives was not lost on those who saw a beginning inside.

Rimimgton's Colour Organ

Prof Rimington
HARMONIC

A Wagnerian trumpet blast, he suggested, might be accompanied by intense orange effects, "which palpitates with the harmonic colours corresponding to a subordinate passage on some of the other orchestral instruments. The blast ceases; there is a faint echo of it upon the violins, while the screen pulsates with pale lemon and saffron hardly discernable. Again comes the blast of trumpets, and once more the screen flames with orange modulations".

Professor Rimington's home demonstrations must have been unforgettable. The Colour Organ was some ten feet high, with a five octave keyboard which was similar to that of a church organ, being controlled by stops. A line of "colour keys" was situated above the conventional (sound) keyboard, and connected to a lens-and-filters system, so that "colour" was "played". Best effects were secured when the sound and colour were played from separate keyboards.


So this became a exercise in understanding how such thought processes could be correlative to something that has existed before in our own histories to now how alien and how foreign such a perception could be housed that it could take the modeled sculptures of that past to reawaken what we had already known once.

So it is as if we take or current eyes that we see with and look at the world in a different way. In this sense, measure defined according to the methods of experimentation prepared the way for others ot solidify their experience, that while in this dramatic effort, I would like to say holds an image in mind. This is an "arch of the kind" that is depicted with Plato and Aristotle standing together, is the understanding of a self evidential examination of an inductive/deductive method to progressing our views according too.

Although Aristotle in general had a more empirical and experimental attitude than Plato, modern science did not come into its own until Plato's Pythagorean confidence in the mathematical nature of the world returned with Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. For instance, Aristotle, relying on a theory of opposites that is now only of historical interest, rejected Plato's attempt to match the Platonic Solids with the elements -- while Plato's expectations are realized in mineralogy and crystallography, where the Platonic Solids occur naturally.Plato and Aristotle, Up and Down-Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.

   School of Athens by Raphael

***

PURPOSE: To show the two-dimensional standing waves on the surface of a square or circular plate.

Now what I want you to do is see this action only in color and sound, so as to depict the relationship with the world as a dance of sorts. Color depicted as a solidification of a sound. All the while we are thinking our usual thoughts to demonstrate that what goes on inside our very minds is demonstrated in a way that is not usual in the world around us.


A Chladni plate consist of a flat sheet of metal, usually circular or square, mounted on a central stalk to a sturdy base. When the plate is oscillating in a particular mode of vibration, the nodes and antinodes set up form a complex but symmetrical pattern over its surface. The positions of these nodes and antinodes can be seen by sprinkling sand upon the plates;

This new perspective look to the reality is one I am always speaking about. One that is very foreign to those that did not understand that this alien civilization exemplified as to the way it always existed. It's is just that we had forgotten about it's methods, until this story was demonstrated here today.


If you sprinkle fine sand uniformly over a drumhead and then make it vibrate, the grains of sand will collect in characteristic spots and figures, called Chladni patterns. These patterns reveal much information about the size and the shape of the drum and the elasticity of its membrane. In particular, the distribution of spots depends not only on the way the drum vibrated initially but also on the global shape of the drum, because the waves will be reflected differently according to whether the edge of the drumhead is a circle, an ellipse, a square, or some other shape.

In cosmology, the early Universe was crossed by real acoustic waves generated soon after Big Bang. Such vibrations left their imprints 300 000 years later as tiny density fluctuations in the primordial plasma. Hot and cold spots in the present-day 2.7 K CMB radiation reveal those density fluctuations. Thus the CMB temperature fluctuations look like Chaldni patterns resulting from a complicated three-dimensional drumhead that




So you see the correlations,  you begin to understand this strange story as one now seeks to apply it's principals according to methods sought after in experimentation and the sorts,  to preview our cosmological frontier in a new and inventive way.




It's as if you've now put on glasses that extend the spectrum of association far beyond anything that is imagined today. It's as if we know the possibilities in the three body problem and the numbered locations that are denoted serve to allow stationary orbits according too, and so all are placed in position to allow information gathering for satellites and space station.. But imagine that such locations can exist other then that holding allows equilibrium non sequestered to one direction or another.

So too then such conclusions can remain open and without such signs as to gravitate toward or relinquish of that we can say that the method has not been crystallized or materialized according to a view. Such colouration then are indeed signs of the colours to which such association in seeking truth has settled within the scope of the human being,  that all is not as it seems without understanding that all things will gravitate toward this principal.

See :

Black and White and Blue All Over

Avatar: the Movie

See Also:Poll: Do you believe in extraterrestrial life?

Friday, August 08, 2008

William Thurston

Xianfeng David Gu and Shing-Tung Yau
To a topologist, a rabbit is the same as a sphere. Neither has a hole. Longitude and latitude lines on the rabbit allow mathematicians to map it onto different forms while preserving information.


William Thurston of Cornell, the author of a deeper conjecture that includes Poincaré’s and that is now apparently proved, said, “Math is really about the human mind, about how people can think effectively, and why curiosity is quite a good guide,” explaining that curiosity is tied in some way with intuition.

“You don’t see what you’re seeing until you see it,” Dr. Thurston said, “but when you do see it, it lets you see many other things.”
Elusive Proof, Elusive Prover: A New Mathematical Mystery

Some of us are of course interested in how we can assign the relevance to perceptions the deeper recognition of the processes of nature. How we get there and where we believe they come from. As a layman I am always interested in this process, and of course, life's mysteries can indeed be a motivating factor. Motivating my interest about the nature of things that go unanswered and how we get there.


William Paul Thurston
(born October 30, 1946) is an American mathematician. He is a pioneer in the field of low-dimensional topology. In 1982, he was awarded the Fields medal for the depth and originality of his contributions to mathematics. He is currently a professor of mathematics and computer science at Cornell University (since 2003).


There are reasons with which I present this biography, as I did in relation to Poincaré and Klein. The basis of the question remains a philosophical one for me that I question the basis of proof and intuition while considering the mathematics.

Mathematical Induction

Mathematical Induction at a given statement is true of all natural numbers. It is done by proving that the first statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, and then proving that if any one statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, then so is the next one.

The method can be extended to prove statements about more general well-founded structures, such as trees; this generalization, known as structural induction, is used in mathematical logic and computer science.

Mathematical induction should not be misconstrued as a form of inductive reasoning, which is considered non-rigorous in mathematics (see Problem of induction for more information). In fact, mathematical induction is a form of deductive reasoning and is fully rigorous
.


Deductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning is reasoning which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premises), which are assumed to be true, to conclusions, which must be true if the premises are true.[1]

The classic example of deductive reasoning, given by Aristotle, is

* All men are mortal. (major premise)
* Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
* Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

For a detailed treatment of deduction as it is understood in philosophy, see Logic. For a technical treatment of deduction as it is understood in mathematics, see mathematical logic.

Deductive reasoning is often contrasted with inductive reasoning, which reasons from a large number of particular examples to a general rule.

Alternative to deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning. The basic difference between the two can be summarized in the deductive dynamic of logically progressing from general evidence to a particular truth or conclusion; whereas with induction the logical dynamic is precisely the reverse. Inductive reasoning starts with a particular observation that is believed to be a demonstrative model for a truth or principle that is assumed to apply generally.

Deductive reasoning applies general principles to reach specific conclusions, whereas inductive reasoning examines specific information, perhaps many pieces of specific information, to impute a general principle. By thinking about phenomena such as how apples fall and how the planets move, Isaac Newton induced his theory of gravity. In the 19th century, Adams and LeVerrier applied Newton's theory (general principle) to deduce the existence, mass, position, and orbit of Neptune (specific conclusions) from perturbations in the observed orbit of Uranus (specific data).


Deduction and Induction



Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.


Back to the lumping in of theology alongside of Atlantis. Rebel dreams, it is hard to remove one's colour once they work from a certain premise. Atheistic, or not.

Seeking such clarity would be the attempt for me, with which to approach a point of limitation in our knowledge, as we may try to explain the process of the current state of the universe, and it's shape. Such warnings are indeed appropriate to me about what we are offering for views from a theoretical standpoint.

The basis presented here is from a layman standpoint while in context of Plato's work, brings some perspective to Raphael's painting, "The School of Athens." It is a central theme for me about what the basis of Inductive and deductive processes reveals about the "infinite regress of mathematics to the point of proof."

Such clarity seeking would in my mind contrast a theoretical technician with a philosopher who had such a background. Raises the philosophical question about where such information is derived from. If ,from a Platonic standpoint, then all knowledge already exists. We just have to become aware of this knowledge? How so?

Lawrence Crowell:
The ball on the Mexican hat peak will under the smallest perturbation or fluctuation begin to fall off the peak, roll into the trough and the universe tunnels out of the vacuum or nothing to become a “something.”


Whether I attach a indication of God to this knowledge does not in any way relegate the process to such a contention of theological significance. The question remains a inductive/deductive process?

I would think philosophers should weight in on the point of inductive/deductive processes as it relates to the search for new mathematics?

Allegory of the Cave

For me this was a difficult task with which to cypher the greater contextual meaning of where such mathematics arose from. That I should implore such methods would seem to be, to me, in standing with the problems and ultimates searches for meaning about our place in the universe. Whether I believe in the "God nature of that light" should hold no atheistic interpretation to my quest for the explanations about the talk on the origins of the universe.

See:

  • The Sound of Billiard Balls

  • Mathematical Structure of the Universe
  • Tuesday, June 17, 2008

    Mathematical Structure of the Universe

    Although Aristotle in general had a more empirical and experimental attitude than Plato, modern science did not come into its own until Plato's Pythagorean confidence in the mathematical nature of the world returned with Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. For instance, Aristotle, relying on a theory of opposites that is now only of historical interest, rejected Plato's attempt to match the Platonic Solids with the elements -- while Plato's expectations are realized in mineralogy and crystallography, where the Platonic Solids occur naturally.Plato and Aristotle, Up and Down-Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.


    Discover Magazine-06.16.2008-Photography by Erika Larsen-Article-"Is the Universe Actually Made of Math? Unconventional cosmologist Max Tegmark says mathematical formulas create reality."

    It makes no difference at this point, which mathematics you choose to delve into the new model perceptions, because if one were to see how a projective geometry was built on previous platforms, then how is it we can see the universe in ways that the WMAP shows unless the mathematics could show that there was more to it then an artists picture displayed? You had to know the depth of the artists skill.

    It does not mean that you are devoid of the possibilities of venturing where the philosophies of mathematics or science can venture. It is understanding that by taking yourself to a certain position in mind, an indecomposable one, one that is self evident, then it is understood that the deductive/inductive efforts bring you to a peak realization, contained in the "Aristotelean Arche."

    This position is the question that one assumes in life, that having exhausted all efforts, and having seen all the information, one is to move their previous stalled position into a "third revolution" of a kind you might say?:)

    See:Backreaction: Discover Interview with Tegmark

    Also see:Theoretical Excellence

    Wednesday, April 23, 2008

    Factoids and Censorship

    Often taking the time to absorbed the full perspective of the writer is just as much an effort as it is to understand the nature and understanding of research and information development about a topic. Where that writer leaves off.

    Bradbury on FAHRENHEIT 451 See also at Home with Ray

    What space has this writer given us, as we look forward to the future? What valuations do we then assign the places in television as we have become numb to the experience of discovering who we are?

    So I do understand the wider perspective here about what people can do to each other as we select and transcribe the future prospects of where we want this society to go. I had learnt about this aspect of numbing as I realized that it was just as great an effort to awake our own selves to the subtle perceptions of existence, as it was to respond most appropriately in our views on the things that we had taken into our beings for assessment.

    It was "as if" we could find that "space in time" where we could "stop time and look in between the clips of our everyday experiencing" and realized then, that in every moment of time as an arrow, human experiences follows? There was that place to awaken our ingenuity of mind to the discoveries of the world around us.


    “Television gives you the dates of Napoleon, but not who he was,” Bradbury says, summarizing TV’s content with a single word that he spits out as an epithet: “factoids.” He says this while sitting in a room dominated by a gigantic flat-panel television broadcasting the Fox News Channel, muted, factoids crawling across the bottom of the screen.



    His book still stands as a classic. But one of L.A.’s best-known residents wants it understood that when he wrote it he was far more concerned with the dulling effects of TV on people than he was on the silencing effect of a heavy-handed government. While television has in fact superseded reading for some, at least we can be grateful that firemen still put out fires instead of start them.
    Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451 Misinterpreted L.A.’s august Pulitzer honoree says it was never about censorship
    By AMY E. BOYLE JOHNSTON Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 7 pm

    Creativity

    How subtle this point about this identification of this question on creativity,"What does "creativity" mean in our lives? that it could be thrown in the mix? There was a greater story here waiting for us in the wind? How unpredictable the weather to see that in the third valley of Amy Tan's exploratory journey, that while she in writing sees the object of stones as a part of the story line, then finds reality has been kind to her, that such serendipity is the realization that all things will come home to roost.

    So too in this aspect and understanding, do I find, that the word "creativity" is a funny thing that such "determinisms are factored with it." That such ideals and relations become the "correlations of cognition" that I had found opening in my own life. It was by discovery of such a method in a literary device I could, look at what other authors were doing as they began their stories.

    How was I to know that the very search I had put myself on would lead me here or there, and to understand, that I was seeing into the future, and the future was coming home to see me?



    The discovery of Plato and his Dialogues were a lesson in mind that I had come to look at, as if, the Dialogues themself were a method by which such perspectives could have pointed toward a future. An outcome, determined by the very process of bringing forth the "point of view", whether by a "truer character of being," or some form of left right brain dialogue of coming to a consensus on that oscillatory moment.

    School of Athens by Raphael

    That two such positions could have been adopted in the painting of Raphael in the Signatore's room at the Vatican, was a deeper recognition to me of the creativity we can assign such outcomes by placing Plato and Aristotle under such such an "Arche."

    The "centre of the painting" is itself to draw attention to all the events that were happening in the school(A Royal Road to Geometry?), but to bring us back to this centralized position within ourselves. To brings us back to the very questions about the relationship of this teacher and student. This was a foundational perspective that was a sign of the times to me.



    While we look at the inductive/deductive relation of what such an Arche represents, it was a method that by such induction/deductions of such things were to become "self evident." This dialogue could be wide sweeping, as we take Aristotle gestures and a sweep of the hand, while Plato, points to a higher purpose, and the revelation of where ideas come from. This is a source of inspiration to me that such deductions while delineating a pathway to historical context, has a relevance to what was always known. Was alway there to be discovered, We just did not realize it yet.

    The Teacher and the Student



    "The Teacher and the student" could exist in each of us. What choice would you have while on such a search to know that while there was never the possibility to assign ourselves to this group or that, that you were to wear the stripe and pattern of, and then loose that part of yourself that was till on the journey?

    The probability of new language development was the realization that from insightful development each of us holds the ability to warm up to the idea of what creativity means in our lives. While we gesture ourselves to that future and PLATO'S HAND, and how IDEAS could descend into every thinking mind that opens itself to such a pathway?

    He wanted to give a speech, but no remarks are allowed. “Not even a paragraph,” he says with disdain. Ray Bradbury: Fahrenheit 451 Misinterpreted
    Why would he just settle with shaking a president's hand while he was being misinterpreted and was left without a voice?

    Ray Bradbury rejected part of the mould "of who and what limits such a participation of self to the truth" was the message that betrays the deeper recognition of what we may assign to our fellow creatures on earth. Shall we learn the truth of who we are now being limited by using the distinctions and factoids, now becomes the way of hiding the deeper relevances the messages have about that truth? Were we acquiescence to such numbing? Then, Wake-UP!:)

    Should we assign such a deduction to what the avenues of new technologies appeal to the nature of "numbing the senses" or, point to the realization, that such devices will allow "fine openings and apertures" which revealed the truth of that ever searching mind?

    Letting Go of the Mould

    Amy Tan reveals a thinking of mind that allow me to write on the "Character of our Heroes," to imply that we had to let go of our prejudgements in order to fully experience the methods and thinking of those historical figures.Sensing who they were in their totality.

    Amy Tan revealed that writing on a particular place in China, the village that she was to write about suffered a terrible loss(sixty homes burnt) and the individual who caused that incident, was to bear the brunt of the village justice. In order for Amy to live and breathe that village, she had to pull back her own opinions about what justice was in order for her to write of the discipline and justice applied to that man. Removing her opinions, and "moving into that space" was to try and expeirence the story fully. Let the story to be written.

    Tuesday, February 12, 2008

    Theoretical Excellence

    Although Aristotle in general had a more empirical and experimental attitude than Plato, modern science did not come into its own until Plato's Pythagorean confidence in the mathematical nature of the world returned with Kepler, Galileo, and Newton. For instance, Aristotle, relying on a theory of opposites that is now only of historical interest, rejected Plato's attempt to match the Platonic Solids with the elements -- while Plato's expectations are realized in mineralogy and crystallography, where the Platonic Solids occur naturally.Plato and Aristotle, Up and Down-Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.


    This is the first introduction then that is very important to me about what is perceived as a mathematical framework. So it is not such an effort to think about our world and think hmmmm.... a mathematical abstract of our reality is there to be discovered. I first noticed this attribute in Pascal's triangle.

    Nineteenth Century Geometry by Roberto Torretti

    The sudden shrinking of Euclidean geometry to a subspecies of the vast family of mathematical theories of space shattered some illusions and prompted important changes in our the philosophical conception of human knowledge. Thus, for instance, after these nineteenth-century developments, philosophers who dream of a completely certain knowledge of right and wrong secured by logical inference from self-evident principles can no longer propose Euclidean geometry as an instance in which a similar goal has proved attainable. The present article reviews the aspects of nineteenth century geometry that are of major interest for philosophy and hints in passing, at their philosophical significance.


    While I looked further into the world of Pythagorean developments I wondered how such an abstract could have ever lead to the world of non-euclidean geometries. There is this progression of the geometries that needed to be understood. It included so many people that we only now acknowledge the greatest names but it is in the exploration of "theoretical excellence" that we gain access to the spirituality's of the mathematical world.

    "I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter


    While some would wonder what value this exploration into such mathematical abstracts, how could we describe for ourselves the ways things would appear at such levels microscopically reduced, has an elemental quality to it? Yes, I have gone to one extreme, and understand, it included so many different mathematics, how could we ever understand this effort and assign it's rightful place in history? Theoretics then, is this effort?

    How Strange the elements of our world?


    The crystalline state is the simplest known example of a quantum , a stable state of matter whose generic low-energy properties are determined by a higher organizing principle and nothing else. Robert Laughlin




    This illustration depicts eight of the allotropes (different molecular configurations) that pure carbon can take:

    a) Diamond
    b) Graphite
    c) Lonsdaleite
    d) Buckminsterfullerene (C60)
    e) C540
    f) C70
    g) Amorphous carbon
    h) single-walled carbon nanotube


    Review of experiments

    Graphite exhibits elastic behaviour and even improves its mechanical strength up to the temperature of about 2500 K. Measured changes in ultrasonic velocity in graphite after high temperature creep shows marked plasticity at temperatures above 2200 K [16]. From the standpoint of thermodynamics, melting is a phase transition of the first kind, with an abrupt enthalpy change constituting the heat of melting. Therefore, any experimental proof of melting is associated with direct recording of the temperature dependence of enthalpy in the neighbourhood of a melting point. Pulsed heating of carbon materials was studied experimentally by transient electrical resistance and arc discharge techniques, in millisecond and microsecond time regime (see, e.g., [17, 18]), and by pulsed laser heating, in microsecond, nanosecond and picosecond time regime (see, e.g., [11, 19, 20]). Both kind of experiments recorded significant changes in the material properties (density, electrical and thermal conductivity, reflectivity, etc. ) within the range 4000-5000 K, interpreted as a phase change to a liquid state. The results of graphite irradiation by lasers suggest [11] that there is at least a small range of temperatures for which liquid carbon can exist at pressure as low as 0.01 GPa. The phase boundaries between graphite and liquid were investigated experimentally and defined fairly well.

    Saturday, March 03, 2007

    Thomas Young: Deep PLay

    A final aspect of beauty that was often cited by readers might be called "deep play". This is the sense that we are actively engaged with something outside ourselves that is responding to us - rather than watching a game of our own construction or watching nature from a detached distance.


    I wanted to continue with the article above in my opening paragraph linked. What he called "deep play." Can it be called the "sensorium of exchange with reality" as others too, can measure it's "import to reason?" It emotively had to make sense first.

    "Deep play doesn't have to do with an activity, like shallow play. It has to do with attitude or an extraordinarily intense state."-Dianne Ackerman


    Can not such an idea would have enlisted even the genius to have found a way to relate to society whilst he had found intuitive moments peaking from the interplay of the "teacher and student" within themself. Engaging the world at a emotive level, whilst trying to find it's meaning about arches and Raphael mandalically placing Plato and Aristotle most centre the larger circle?

    Consciousness emerges when this primordial story-the story of a object causally changing the state of the body-can be told using the universal nonverbal vocabulary of body signals. The apparent self emerges as the feeling of a feeling. When the story is first told, spontaneously, without it ever being requested, and furthermore after that when the story is repeated, knowledge about hwat the organism is living through automatically emerges as the answer to a question never asked. From that moment on, we begin to know.
    Pg 31, The Feeling of What Happens, by Antonio Damasio



    The "toposense" between the subjective world and the objective world. As a painting, or a "schematic," to reveal this relationship which is deeply ingrained in each of us. We just lacked the explanation of it?

    Thomas Young, English scientist 1773-1829
    Vision and colour theory: Young has also been called the founder of physiological optics. In 1793 he explained the mode in which the eye accommodates itself to vision at different distances as depending on change of the curvature of the crystalline lens; in 1801 he was the first to describe astigmatism; and in his Lectures he presented the hypothesis, afterwards developed by Hermann von Helmholtz, that colour perception depends on the presence in the retina of three kinds of nerve fibres which respond respectively to red, green and violet light. This theory was experimentally proven in 1959.


    Some how one can have these thoughts about things "being subjective" somehow misses the scientific validation process. Are you to strict? That it is somehow related to the "philosophical analysis" and somehow not worthy of the introspective history. To even include where such ideas can emerge from is preposterous? What did they build on? Resources, which can be drawn from the archived data and materials, to greatly enhance routes that have already been established.

    Would you ignore one who had developed his perspective in relation to "symmetry" and not include it in one's analysis of what may be "beautiful" yet still evades our thinking about a supersymmetrical point? AS a scientist you may have quickly sideswipe any relatin to this yet I know scientists who might have said otherwise.

    Only does it then make sense, when something is asymmetrically emerging from it? Discrete?

    Beauty, Plato wrote, is not easy to define, but something that "slips through and evades us". For this reason, many logic-oriented philosophical approaches tend to divorce and even oppose truth and beauty. "The question of truth", wrote logician Gottlob Frege in one of his most influential works, "would cause us to abandon aesthetic delight for an attitude of scientific investigation."
    See: The most beautiful experiment

    Friday, February 02, 2007

    Change that Had Consequences

    In the post, Hermetic Ties, I showed how historically information was engraved, crafted, into the woodcuts, for knowledge based on alchemist interests. I further explained the process as I have come to know of it in terms of developing this "inquisitive search into the mystery's of what life" is about how the questioning mind of any person can become the "way of the teacher" as well, enclosed within that same person.

    The teacher/student relation then is inherent in each of us, that we understand how one can push the other in our inquirers. Comparable to "this Arch of understanding" I spoke about.

    Geometrically, I laid this over top of the circle, mandalic in interpretation, that it served to raise the wonder in mind of what is driving this relation of the student with the world around them. "As the teacher" finding consequence to every inquisitive act, in answer.

    Such results then become the new and alternate plan to what is used to describe this new found relation. Ways in which the driving force of "wanting to learn" become an inherent "topological feature" of what begins descriptively, now has this inner/outer consequent to "expanding the frontiers of our knowledge base," inherently expanding the "fluttering of this egg of colour" that surrounds each of us.

    Debate if you will the words associated to "fluttering of this egg" and ask your self about what science has accomplished in mapping neurological sequences with the patterns of thought in relation to the condensible brain? What it might reveal of the "condensible features." Might such action also reveal in the "outer cover?"

    "In 1680, Isaac Newton worked on the abstract problem of gravity and he changed the world. In 1820, Michael Faraday discovered a connection between the exotic phenomena of electricity and magnetism and his discoveries electrified the world. Einstein's 1905 conceptual obsession with space and time led to nuclear energy and the operation of accelerators for knowledge, for cancer therapy and for machines that provide luminescent x-ray photographs of viruses and toxins. In 1897, the "useless" electron was discovered. In 1977, Fermilab discovered the bottom quark and in 1995 the top quark was found. The lessons of history are clear. The more exotic, the more abstract the knowledge, the more profound will be its consequences." Leon Lederman, from an address to the Franklin Institute, 1995


    So before this "act of change existed," the position of the student/teacher had already formed a consensus. I was looking to find this place amongst the order of such changes. It became the study I have placed myself "in" as I look to understand what scientists are saying from the "accepted position" they assume. As they work to develop "insight" and "model changes" to what we already know. To push "beyond" these boundaries of thought. The "standard model" perhaps.

    That I may give credence to what is hidden by Raphael in "his painting" is to gather a lot of perspective of the history of the times. To have them all resting on the "stairs and ladder of progression" to perfecting this relation "of the inquirer."

    The painting serves in this "mandalic sense" to represent the action of Plato and Aristotle as key figures in this relationship of "above and below." Inner and outer. Why their centralized location in the picture

    I have been short on time, so the articles that I have read are snippets of the "larger picture" while I can get back to more research.

    But the essence "is" that along with "this change with discoveries," scientists have this way about handling things. This has been reiterated by Clifford and others in science. So I just wanted to highlight this. AS part of this fundamental status of moving to ward these consequences and statement of change.

    The science press and scientists themselves do science a disservice when they seek to dramatize a discovery by emphasizing that it discredits a previous theory. Such coverage typically does not discuss whether the earlier theory was tentative or whether the new result modifies a well-established but incomplete theory. This dramatization feeds the popular image that all scientific knowledge is tentative. Much is tentative, but much is well understood and unlikely to be discredited. We scientists need to convey more about the status of our knowledge than can be learned from the muddy "most scientists believe" statement. We need our listeners to know what is tentative and what is not so that they understand better the ragged but cumulative progression of science and can use current knowledge effectively, with an understanding of its inherent uncertainties, in personal and political decision making.


    So again by giving credence to what scientists have requested by those who are of the science themself, serve as role models for what is accepted, as we investigate and report.

    To visit perspective scientists in the know, are not the way in which to say, "hey listen I have found this to be so and so," and have some "revolutionary change." To let them alone, and continue to push the boundaries of the trade by investigating the work that they do, and learn accordingly. To read what they have written, and join in by asking what you are not sure about. Of course depending on the scientist's openness to sharing of themself, realizing "the greater message" can be conveyed to the many.

    How did they get to their perspective positions that they know more then what you know and we had not assimilated the required knowledge? What is every statement saying, about what you know of the science "against" what they have learnt and we may lack the comprehensive understanding of what laws we see applied in every case.

    Under this whole post exist the thoughts then about Thomas Kuhn and the paradigm as it would have shown itself as "change that had consequence." Only now do you see this relation here while speaking about change and consequence, did you not know that it followed some rules according to some kind of model and research?

    Thomas Kuhn

    See here for more information on the person, and model perspective. The paragraph is taken to show the connection to the research work already done in the past, on my part. The label as well will reveal earlier thinking as I integrate what I understood of the philosophy, and "other perspectives" as well.

    The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

    Tuesday, January 30, 2007

    Hermetic Ties: Art to Esoteric Form

    The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into Earth. Separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the Earth to the Heavens and again it descends to the Earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations, whereof the process is here in this. Hence am I called Hermes Trismegistus, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.Sir Isaac Newton-Translation of the Emerald Tablet
    See: Newton on Chymistry

    Again I open this blog post with the understanding that what an artist like Raphael may try to do? May include, much of the philosophy of the times, and have these things descriptively enclosing processes indicative of what they had known, but also of what these things could hide within the self.


    In center, while Plato - with the philosophy of the ideas and theoretical models, he indicates the sky, Aristotle - considered the father of Science, with the philosophy of the forms and the observation of the nature indicates the Earth. Many historians of the Art in the face correspondence of Plato with Leonardo, Heraclitus with Miguel Angel, and Euclides with Twine agree.

    If we watched of distant spot, of century XX aC emphasizes Hermes Trismegisto, - tri three, megisto megas, three times great; perhaps the perception of infinite older than we have and takes by Mercurio name - for Greek and the Toth - for the Egyptians. Considered Father of the Wisdom and Sciences in Greece, in the cult to Osiris it presided over the ceremonies as priest and he was Masterful in Egypt like legislator, philosopher and alchemist during the reign of Ninus in the 2270 aC.

    Etimológicamente speaking, of Hermes, the gr. hermenéuiein, “hermetic” - closed, “hermenéutica” - tie art to the reading of old sacred texts talks about so much to the dark as to which it is included/understood in esoteric form. Part of saberes that it accumulated transmitted through the Hermetic Books that only to the chosen ones between the chosen ones could be revealed. As much Pitágoras and Plato as Aristotle and Euclides were initiated in the knowledge of the Hermetic School.


    In Man looking into Space, I wanted to show how casual our science has used these images and not realized the context to which the greater meaning had laid hidden, all the while it is used to "describe cosmology" and the science thereof.

    A banner has been been written across these times to which scientists hold to all that is true. In this, the reasons to dismiss any implications of history assigned along side, is asking "what validation" can be given to anything that is spoken from our times now.

    I went on in that post, "man looking into space," to explain something about the woodcuts. The art form produced, grabbed my thinking in relation to the "alchemical art forms" and grabs my thinking in regards to the "School of Athens picture."


    The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202. Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH.


    I just wanted to say that the essence of this blog post is about "the arches," and I am moving toward that description, and what is happening when we take a picture of them. Look at the "design inherent" and "dynamics" as held to gravity in it's construction. Look at what it can signify in it's "internal expression" about our contact with the world around us. The bridging that it can signify.

    I would apologize for leaving this post undone, while views pass by the essence of this post. I am indeed busy with life. So I wanted to clarify this push toward the internal dynamics, while speaking to the psychology of this work.

    A scientist may side step this look, while quoting the hermetical values of what may be said by the previous first lady Hillary Clinton. In itself, an empty page, only leaves room for what had to be expressed if it was not gotten the first time? Her attempts at humour, are the attempts to break the "rigidity of the personality?"

    The Psychology



    Myths and metaphors, like dreams, are powerful tools that draw the listener, dreamer, or reader to a character, symbol, or situation, as if in recognition of something deeply known. Myth's bypass the mind's efforts to divorce information. They make an impression, are remembered, and nudge us to find out what they mean, accounting for the avid interest that Ring audiences have in the meaning of the story.1


    Who has been so colourful in your journeys across the internet to include a wonderful language that takes you into this world of discovery of self? You had to know something about the "psychology of people" in order to give a story by nature, it's mythic description, and "most artful" to draw attention to what lies underneath.

    The Alchemists attempted to perfect the One Thing of Hermes, what they called the First Matter, by using specific physical, psychological, and spiritual techniques that they describe in chemical terms and demonstrated in laboratory experiements. However, while the alchemists spoke in terms of chemcials, furaces , flasks, and beakers, they were really talking about the changes taking place within their own bodies, minds, and souls.2


    Thus I have given two examples that I had promised sometime back to illustrate some of the "compelling work" that while ancient indeed, is not without it's efforts in todays world. It is the attempt to cross all boundaries, race, gender, and help one to recognize the diversity of the soul with out it's jacket. Shall we call your soul male or female, black or white?

    So I am bypassing this, and that has been my message, while the efforts to climb out of the constraints that we have come to recognize within the boundaries of self. Are the realization of the diversity of "all souls" and their time in expression.

    Shall we find the excuse to hold ourselves to the thoughts, that while overcoming, the constraints which still exist "within" had to be continually challenged? We have to break the "chains that bind us."

    The Arches


    Golden Rectangle
    I took the picture at a time of day when the tide was at exactly the right place to create this image: when the surface of the water reflected the underside of the bridge and they combined, together they produced what I named the Golden Rectangle as a nod to Pythagoras (my hero). The sensation I experienced at the time was of balancing consciousness and feeling.


    It probably seems that it is taking time to get to the essence of this post. IN order to get to the "psychological effect" that I am getting too it important to think of the images of these arches. It is about "each of us" and how we relate to the world. How, the "teacher and student" can exist within the same person.

    I point to the Heaven's in the case of the "school of Athens, while Aristotle points to what is on Earth?" Shall we leave no doubt of the "physical things" while we understand that there are more ephemeral qualities to these matter states? That we move continuously between them?



    The Inner/Outer World

    The drawn of our focus is the external world, but, if we were to connect the internal world with that "external view" how shall we do that. How shall we describe the whole being in this exercise?

    Part of this "exchange with reality," is that we can know by continually moving this information "through us" and creating "the space around us," we add to the total view "beyond what was apparent" with just the brain's condensible qualities in neurological display?

    By 'dilating' and 'expanding' the scope of our attention we not only discover that 'form is emptiness' (the donut has a hole), but also that 'emptiness is form' (objects precipitate out of the larger 'space') - to use Buddhist terminology. The emptiness that we arrive at by narrowing our focus on the innermost is identical to the emptiness that we arrive at by expanding our focus to the outermost. The 'infinitely large' is identical to the 'infinitesimally small'.The Structure of Consciousness John Fudjack - September, 1999


    While I quote above, the second part of the quote adds directly to the understanding. Not only are we "crossing the wires here," we are identifying "a aspect of consciousness" that is continuous.

    In this metaphor, when we are seeing the donut as solid object in space, this is like ordinary everyday consciousness. When we see the donut and the hole at its center, this is like a stage of realization in which 'form' is recognized as 'empty'. When we zoom in extremely closely and inspect the 'emptiness' at the center, or zoom out an extreme distance away from the object and the donut seems to disappear and we have only empty space - this is like certain 'objectless' states of awareness that can occur in meditation. But the final goal is not to achieve the undifferentiated state itself; it is to come to the special perspective that allows us to continue to see all three aspects at once - the donut, the whole in the middle, and the space surrounding it - this is like the 'enlightened' state, in this analogy. 10 The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous.


    So given "this relationship" on what we can build within self, then what use all this knowledge if we cannot grow with it? What of Plato's and Aristotle, as figures within the "centre of" Raphael's painting. Their perspective, "as positions in relation too," the "questioning stance" about this "unity of the circle" in our exchange with reality?



    So how would you exemplify "this exchange" with reality while "below the surface" all these "probable outcomes" are the manifestation of that which is real? You extend yourself "out there" while you also extend yourself inside? The "infinite regress," is to find oneself, with all that is "past" in front of you, can allow you to stand on what of, "the future" will pass through?

    First Principle saids that you acknowledge your place in the scheme of things as you "stretch" the thinking of the mind? Increase the "neurological frontier" in those neurological connections? Increase, the fluttering of the egg's feature, of that condensible brain/body.

    Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.

    But, Aristotle thinks that knowledge begins with experience. We get to first principles through induction. But there is no certainty to the generalizations of induction. The "Problem of Induction" is the question How we know when we have examined enough individual cases to make an inductive generalization. Usually we can't know. Thus, to get from the uncertainty of inductive generalizations to the certainty of self-evident first principles, there must be an intuitive "leap," through what Aristotle calls "Mind." This ties the system together. A deductive system from first principles (like Euclidean geometry) is then what Aristotle calls "knowledge" ("epistemê" in Greek or "scientia" in Latin).


    From here it would not be to unlikely that such dealings with the "reality of the world" would ask that we experiment and from such experiment, we learn the truth of the reality. While what the past is "in front" of us, to what goes beyond to it's future would be like asking the very nature of expression to manifest as this universe and laws of thermodynamics that the arrow of time only moves one way.

    "The future" arises from within then? We'll move forward by what choices we make? About our conclusions, about reality?


    1 Ring of Power, Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D. Page 3

    2The Emerald Tablet, Dennis William Hauck, Chapter 10, Page 151