Montréal, March 18, 2000
Robert Burns (1759 -1796)
'To a Louse, on Seeing One on a Lady's Bonnet, at Church' 
1.000 Our personal behavior can only be imagined
1.010 We are at the center of our personal behaviour and thus cannot see it in front of us. We cannot be a voyeur of our own behavior.
1.020 "As a matter of fact, if any mind observes from the sun those harmonies [the simultaneous harmonies of the system of sun and planets], that mind is without the assistance afforded by the movement and diverse stations of his abode, by means of which it may string together ratiocinations and discourse necessary for measuring out the planetary intervals." (Johannes Kepler, 'Harmonies of the World', 1618)
1.022 Rational thought (ratiocination) cannot tell us anything about our real-time experience, aka 'behavior' (thrust-and-parry behavior), ... the 'center of our experiencing'.
1.030 While our experience can only be 'known' by indirect means, our 'Here' and 'Now' experience, aka 'behavior', can only be imagined.
1.040 Our (thrust and parry) behavior is 'sensed' by the ensemble of changing range and azimuth between our center or 'mind's eye' and the other constituents of the containing environment in which we are immersed.
1.050 Since we can only sense relative motion and not absolute motion or stillness, we cannot, without abstract simplification, reference movement to our personal coordinate system, ... but must assume that there is a relativistic co-dynamic between ourselves and the other features of our containing environment.
1.060 People assume that they 'know' in absolute terms what they are doing, but what they are doing can never be directly known, it can only be imagined.
1.070 Since our most basic sensory information, our experiencing of 'Here' and 'Now' is relative to the other moving features of our containing environment, it is impossible to separate 'Here' from 'Now'. That is, our basic experience is space-time flow or 'Here-and-Now'.
2.010 As Kepler pointed out, what we say we 'know' is not absolute but based on 'ratiocinative intellection', ... by comparing one thing with another and stringing these comparisons together until it appears that our knowledge is absolute and 'explicit'.
2.020 Underpinning all of our rational propositions are facts, and all facts are assumed or 'imagined'; i.e. there are no facts which can be known 'absolutely'.
2.030 A 'fact' is constituted by our understanding up to the point (extent of unbounded space-time) where our investigations cease. For as long as a fact is contained within a larger space-time context, ... which is inevitably is, ... we can continue to garner further understanding about that fact by pursuing that context on throughout the whole of unbounded space-time. Since space-time is unbounded and self-referential, that means that we can pursue an understanding of a 'fact' forever (without ever getting to the point that our understanding stops growing).
2.040 Explicit knowledge is a collection of facts.
2.040 Implicit knowledge, aka 'understanding', ... is relational and imaginary.
3.010 "Wisdom consists in understanding the way the world works" (Heraclitus)
3.020 "The knowledge of many things does not teach understanding" (Heraclitus)
* * *
There is an implicit 'relativistic' understanding which comes from the whole-and-part consistency amongst the above propositions. Such understanding is basic to our consciousness and goes beyond the capabilities of rational thought, as Kepler made clear. Rational thought is exposed, in a fundamental way, to inconsistencies. This is shown by Goedel's Theorem. Goedel's theorem proves two different but related 'incompletenesses' of rational thought;
1. If axiomatic set theory is consistent, there exist theorems that can neither be proved nor disproved.
2. There is no constructive procedure that will prove axiomatic theory to be consistent.
The lessons of experience testify to the manifest consistency in Goedel's theorem, which is basically saying that; (a) rational thought can't explain everything, and (b) by building theorems from the bottom up, we can come into conflict with ourselves.
For example, Newtonian physics is an internally consistent suite of rational 'mathematical principles', which we have 'abstracted' from nature via our ratiocinations and factual assumptions. Factual assumptions such as Newton's first law, which bases things on an inertial reference frame centered on the observer. This 'fact' stops prior to consideration of the 'next fact' of 'relativity', ... that we cannot assume that 'our' reference frame, or 'local empire', is fixed and then reference everything to it and expect that all of the propositions we build on top of this, using a 'constructive procedure', are going to be consistent with the environmental container or 'primary empire'.
Because our initial sensory experience was of a 'co-dynamic' which can only be imagined. In order to make it 'real' or 'explicit', we had to assume the fixed reference frame and then simplify and reduce our relativistic 'co-dynamic', .... a 'dipolar' entity, down to the notion of 'material dynamics', ... a 'monopolar' abstraction (which involves seeing the two poles of a dipole as separate and independent entities) of our invention which is not found in nature.
Here, we can see that we have two types of 'imagination', ... the 'intuitive imagination' which is relationally intuitive and extracts consistent relational patterns from our sensory experience, ... and the 'abstract imagination' which mechanically invents unnatural logical constructs which, as Poincaré and Wittgenstein have pointed out, ... are like 'grids' which stand along side of nature and crudely emulate it. Logic and rationality ARE NOT explanations of nature, .. they are, instead, incomplete and not necessarily consistent suites of 'conventions' which attempt to mechanically emulate nature.
THE FOUNDATION OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS IS INTUITIVE IMAGINATION OF OUR SENSATION OF SPACE-TIME FLOW.
This is not a wild guess, or a theory out of the blue, .. and while it is a 'fact' (and thereby to be understood in an innately incomplete sense), it is not dependent on 'facts'. It is, instead, based on the most fundamental of our powers of intellection as described by Einstein in his essays on relativity ('Geometry and Experience'). He describes this 'relational' mode of intellection as being the requirement for visualizing a volumetric [**N.B. .. do not think in terms of 'rectangular' 3D here] reality which is finite and unbounded.
It is important to realize that this notion is the 'general case' interpretation of our sensory experiencing of the world. To say that the universe is 'infinite' is an abstract, special case approximation, ... a very 'nice' case for mathematicians because it means that we no longer have to 'manage' both the 'FEATURES' of the world AND, at the same time, the SPACES between the features, ... because if space is infinite, there can be no SELF-REFERENTIALITY of space itself; i.e. if space is infinite, it cannot PARTICIPATE in physical phenomena. This simplification, constituted by our employing the euclidian space convention, removes IMAGINATION from our view of reality, EVEN THOUGH imagination is essential to visualizing reality in terms of immersion within a codynamical flow-volume, because there is no 'real' ground anywhere to 'stand on' and all there is are 'imagined relationships'.
If we do not make the euclidian approximation and stay consistent with our sensory experience, ... with a visualization of space as finite and unbounded, ... as non-euclidian space is, ... then we must manage both the 'features' of space and the inter-feature 'reciprocal disposition' to those features AT THE SAME TIME, and this implies that our information will be 'complex' (having both 'real' and 'imaginary' components).
SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS IS INTUITIVE IMAGINATION OF OUR SENSATION OF SPACE-TIME FLOW, WE MUST ASSUME THAT SPACE IS FINITE AND UNBOUNDED (THE GENERAL CASE) BECAUSE WE HAVE NO BASIS ON WHICH TO SIMPLIFY AND APPROXIMATE SPACE AS HAVING INFINITE EXTENT.
In other words, our basic understanding of the way the world works demands that we use the non-euclidian space assumption. Einstein's words on this are as follows;
"Can we picture to ourselves a three-dimensional universe which is finite, yet unbounded?
The usual answer to this question is "No,'' but that is not the right answer. The purpose of the following remarks is to show that the answer should be "Yes.'' I want to show that without any extraordinary difficulty we can illustrate the theory of a finite universe by means of a mental image to which, with some practice, we shall soon grow accustomed.
First of all, an observation of epistemological nature. A geometrical-physical theory as such is incapable of being directly pictured, being merely a system of concepts. But these concepts serve the purpose of bringing a multiplicity of real or imaginary sensory experiences into connection in the mind. To 'visualise' a theory, or bring it home to one's mind, therefore means to give a representation to that abundance of experiences for which the theory supplies the schematic arrangement. In the present case we have to ask ourselves how we can represent that relation of solid bodies with respect to their reciprocal disposition (contact) which corresponds to the theory of a finite universe. There is really nothing new in what I have to say about this; but innumerable questions addressed to me prove that the requirements of those who thirst for knowledge of these matters have not yet been completely satisfied. So, will the initiated please pardon me, if part of what I shall bring forward has long been known? "
Thus, by using our relational intelligence, ... the most basic and powerful of our intellectual capacities, and a capability which does not suffer the incompletenesses of rational intellection as demonstrated by Goedel's Theorem, we can visualize our containing reality in terms of non-euclidian space, ... i.e. in terms of a self-referential space-time continuum.
Einstein closes his 'Geometry and Experience' presentation (originally give to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1921, and subsequently published as an essay) with the comment;
"My only aim today has been to show that the human faculty of visualisation is by no means bound to capitulate to non-Euclidean geometry."
Another aid to visualization of non-euclidian geometry is the game of pool. The pool table emulates spherical space and thus provides a simple and very suitable ground for exploring the properties of non-euclidian geometry, ... particularly the simultaneous co-dynamic between a constituent and its containing environment (between the features of space-time and their containing unbounded space-time whole). This 'playground' informs one on the relationship between 'possibility space' (the relational interference configuration) and 'actuality space' (the causal transactions amongst the balls), ... i.e. that the latter is contained as a secondary feature within the former.
Earlier I paraphrased the second incompleteness of Goedel's Theorem in the terms that "... (b) by building theorems from the bottom up, we can come into conflict with ourselves.", ... and this point was made by Kepler in his remark about 'the academies' which was cited in the 'Yin Masters' essay; i.e. by starting from our observations of a phenomenon and making simplifications, we go into a 'down-and-back-up-again' mode of inquiry (Ackoff), or 'in-and-back-out-again' mode of inquiry. But when we implement such models, because we have simplified the 'facts' as we went 'in' to build our way back 'out', ... we are liable to discover a significant mismatch with the enveloping environmental context as we come back 'out' again.
Note that I changed the terminology from 'down-and-back-up-again' to 'in-and-back-out-again'. This is important because in non-euclidian space, ... there is no such thing as 'up' or 'down', ... these notions only exist in the rectangular space of Euclid (euclidian space). Non-euclidian space is like the outer surface of a sphere. If I am playing pool on such a surface, I can say that I strike the ball so that it goes 'up' (up the table or down the table etc.) but if I strike it hard enough (and hit all four banks in the case of pool), it will go up and over, down and around and come back through the point it started off. We cannot even properly call this 'circular', ... but we can say that things can 'go outwards' from a point, and that they can 'come inwards' towards a point. Now it is clear that these two 'geoemtries', ... 'divergence' and 'convergence' are the primary way we sense reality, and these are descriptive features of motion which accommodate relativity (up and down do not!). Not only this, but it is a well known biological principle that animals (and plants and minerals), ... are in a constant state of negotiating equilibrium between the 'inner space' and the 'outer space' (levels of 'empire'), ... and as Henri Laborit points out, ... this goes on 'fractally' from the atom and beyond inwards, and outwards through the molecule, cell, organ, organism, community, society, environment, cosmos. This inner-outer equilibrium seeking in con-spherically nested 'empires' is what an 'ecology' is all about. It is what nature is all about, ... and it is what people are all about, and what animals, and plants and minerals are all about.
Given this background, we can revisit Gabor's theory of communications and reconcile it with human communications and information theory, including psychology.
As above, the basic foundation of our understanding of the world is our 'Here-and-Now' experiencing which we can call 'Behavior' (B) in the 'thrust and parry within an immersing volume' sense of behaviour. Our experience 'B' is purely imaginary since there is no fixed ground or absolute fact which comes with our experiencing, ... such facts being derived. In fact our experience 'B' is reciprocally symmetric, thus we can as much consider 'B' to be the 'reciprocal dynamic' of the containing space, as the dynamic of some 'feature' or 'thing' thought of as a 'constituent' within the space. Even our existence as a thinking entity ('Cogito ergo suum') is a derived fact or 'jumping to conclusion', since there is nothing to tell us that our immersing container with which our sensory experiencing informs us we are thrusting and parrying with is not 'us' as well, ... and this indeed turns out to be the fundamental inference of the general theory of relativity, and thus suggests the false logic of 'Cogito'.
The fundamental role of an imaginary behavioral experiencing, 'B' reciprocally set up the notion of a center of experiencing or consciousness 'C', which has the powers of intellection to postulate a non-relativistic fixed euclidian coordinate system (remember, this is a simplification since our senses only perceive relative motion or 'co-dynamics') which enables us to assume some facts about material things which could not exist without euclidian space, and 'ratiocinatively', through a 'constructive procedure' (exposed to Goedel's Theorem incompleteness), build a world view which we will call Experience (E). That is, our simplifying assumption of euclidian space allows us to simplify and reduce of behavioral experiencing of space-time flow, 'B', ... where we understand our containing reality in terms of 'implicit' relational patterns or 'features', ... to a reality wherein 'fixed' or 'explicit' 'material things' populate an infinite, rectangular and empty space. This duality of perception (the relational view 'B' and the rational view 'E') seems to be part of the dipolar unity of consciousness.
In our imaginary 'B' world, there is only relational flow and implied possibilities, .. there are no fixed material entities and therefore there can be no 'material-causal' 'actuality'.
Thus, within our conscious experiencing of reality, possibility space is in the primacy, and actuality space is a derived and contained feature within possibility space. We might argue that our 'aware consciousness' is a subset of our overall 'consciousness'.
This 'dipolar' model is consistent with the Gabor model of quantum physics compliant information theory, which sees information as being complex. This can be discussed, being careful with the approximative nature of the language we use, since, as Gabor points out, 'time and frequency' are not orthogonal. The orthogonality of time and frequency is a simplifying approximation which lies, unfortunately, at the base of our mainstream informational theory and from which we use 'constructive procedures' to put together 'information' and 'knowledge' of a euclidian genre which is innately exposed to the conflicts which emanate from 'Goedel's Theorem incompletenesses'.
Our complex experience or 'consciousness', 'C', then, gives us access to the implicit, imaginary and primary aspect of our experience 'B', as well to the secondary, derived rational or 'real' (invented) part of experience 'E' (our explicit knowledge of our experience). This can be visualized in terms of complex number algebra.
. . . . . C = E + i* B
Now any complex 'number' such as this can be visualized in terms of a complex exponential (which invokes the notion of resonant motion);
. . . . . C = E + i*B = R*e**(i*w*t)
where we see our complex experience or 'consciousness', 'C' as a function of time (we must use this linear time view only as a 'ladder'), ... then 'C (t)', by analogy to Gabor's complex signal, can be visualized as a rotating vector.
What this means is that our 'self' is floating in the space between our Experience and our Behavior, and this fits with Gerhard Grössing's work on relativity, mentioned in the 'Yin Masters ..' essay, i.e.;
"And as Gerhard Grössing says in 'Die Information der Physik: Subjektal und Objektal',... the logic of evolution (symmetry => asymmetry => integration => meta-symmetry, gives rise to a 'circular causality', and only when we put the 'center of awareness' between the 'subject' (observational instrument) and the 'object' does quantum theory make sense, ... a vantage point from which these two components, ... 'subject' and 'object' are understood merely as 'thought-props'."
What this says, taken together with the thoughts of Kepler, Schroedinger and Einstein, is that our 'mind' or center of consciousness 'C' is the hermeneutic 'rotating vector' which floats in the gap between ourself seen as 'subject' (E) and ourself seen as object, (B). In other words what we sense as we look outwards is 'ourself' as defined by the reciprocal disposition to ourself. 'We' are the relational space which we occupy, ...'we' are our own 'niche', and since our 'niche' is an 'inner-outer' co-dynamic which cannot be broken apart (without resorting to the non-relativistic simplifying approximation of euclidian space), it must be our 'niche persona' which lives and evolves, rather than our explicit 'subject' self as defined by our properties and behaviors (since our explicit knowledge is a derived approximation and will always 'lag' in both time and informational detail, as will be shown).
'WE', ... aka OUR 'SELF'... ARE A UNIQUE RELATIONAL NICHE IN THE 'HERE-AND-NOW'.
Now, there can be no argument here to dispute this proposition which is based on our relational intelligence,... by bringing our imaginary and real experiences into connection in our mind. That is, ... this proposition is consistent with all of our experience.
The contrary argument or position, held by mainstream science, is based on the demonstrably false (inconsistent) proposition that our reality is characterized by euclidian space, ... which in turn gives rise to the derived and approximative notions of material 'things' and the primacy of 'actuality' (material-causal dynamics).
But euclidian space is merely a simplifying convention which we impose on our scientific models, and not an explanation of 'the way the world works'.
MAINSTREAM SCIENCE, AND OUR MANAGEMENT, EDUCATION AND REGULATORY FUNCTIONS, REFUSE TO 'LET GO' OF THE NOTION OF THE PRIMACY OF EUCLIDIAN SPACE, ... AND THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL SOURCE OF RISING DYSFUNCTION IN OUR MODERN SOCIETY.
Looking at the psychological implications of the complex consciousness model, we can see the following;
. . . . . . C(t) = E(t) + i*B(t), ... where;
'C(t)' is 'complex experience' or 'consciousness' as a function of time,
'E(t)' is 'explicit experience' or 'knowledge' as a function of time, and,
'B(t)' is 'imagined behavior' in the 'Here-and-Now' as a function of time.
.. rearranging these terms, we can better illustrate the central positioning of 'C(t)';
. . . . . . . E(t) <==> C(t) <==> B(t)
. . . . . . Explicit Persona <==> Consciousness <==> Niche Persona
Consider yourself, the seat of your mind as being a 'rotating vector' which is continually absorbing and sharing information with, on the one hand, your 'reciprocal disposition' or 'inner-outer co-dynamic' with the immersing whole of unbounded space-time, ... your 'niche persona', if you like, ....and on the other hand, ... with your explicit, knowledge-based persona, characterized by physical properties and recorded behaviors- seen- in- their -own- independent (euclidian)- right. How would this work?
As you move, since everything you experience in the 'Here-and-Now' is a relativistic co-dynamic, you can only imagine what it is 'like'. You do not see the louse on the back of your bonnet, or the sweat oozing out of the pores on the back of your neck, ... you can only imagine it. But you nevertheless reduce this incomplete imagination into an explicit knowledge-based rendering of your experience.
Over time, by 'effectively seeing yourself' reflected in the things around you (by ratiocinative intellection or 'rational thought'), you can build an explicit picture of your behavioral experience and come to 'know' your explicit experience. At this point, you could write it down in an 'autobiography' etc. But IT IS CLEAR that this explicit experience IS SECONDARY OR "DERIVED" INFORMATION since everything must come through our imagined sensory experiencing of the 'Here-and-Now'.
But you, as 'C(t)', are simply consciousness, and it is your 'thrust and parry motions' emanating from 'you as an evolutionary flow-feature', which co-create transformation of the immersing evolutionary flow. That is, your relative motion co-transforms the relationships between your local 'space-time empire' and the reciprocal, immersing, unbounded whole of space-time. And in fact, your 'motion' appears to stem from the balancing of co-dynamics between your internal systems with the dynamics of the external systems within which you are immersed (i.e. there is always simultaneous reciprocation). Now this 'feeling' is of a codynamic,... that is the nature of feeling, ... of an imbalance between two realms, ... if everything was 'in balance', there would be nothing to feel, ... and the breakdown into 'internal and external' is an abstraction of the mind which does not deny the greater reality of an inner-outer unity, ... but this distinction is a useful one for the survival of your 'local empire'.
When you are young, your 'E' will be underdeveloped and you will stand more heavily on the ladder of 'B' (reciprocal disposition),... in this mode, you will be 'modelling' or 'aping' the immersing environment, ... becoming your 'niche persona', .. and where you get a 'correlation', you will 'keep' that and 'file it' over in 'E', the explicit knowledge about your behavior.
* * *
To divert for a moment, ... it is interesting that, in Gabor's 'Theory of Communications', ... the imaginary component corresponding to 'B' is the 'quadrature' to 'E', which is the 'auto-convolution' of 'E' with itself. In geophysical signal processing, the autoconvolution of a seismic amplitude function of time with itself, is said to generate all possible 'ghost reflections'.
A simple example is given by what happens when one sets off an impulsive explosion in the sea (as is done in marine seismic exporation). As the propagating wave descends downward (inward) into the earth, ... it strikes and reflects off of the water-bottom, but is also partially transmitted and continues on its way downward and deeper into the earth. Each time it hits a rock interface, some of the wave energy is passed (transmitted) and continues on down and deeper, while some of energy is reflected and turns back up towards the surface.
Now if we consider, just one of these waves or 'signals' which is returning to the surface, ... the one reflected back upwards when it 'strikes' the water-bottom, ... it will come up to the water-air surface and be almost totally reflected back down again, ... once more going down and deeper into the water and earth. At this point, the downward wave 'looks just like' the original downgoing wave EXCEPT that it has been inverted in phase when it was reflected at the ocean-air interface, ... thus it is 180 degrees out of phase with the primary downgoing (and delayed in time since it went down and up and down through the water), ... and it will go down and generate all of the reflections the original (primary) downgoing signal did but where the original signal was a 'positive compression' (push or blow), ... the 'ghost signal' will be a 'negative compression' (pull or suck). This is the same (congruent) phenomena as occurs in electromagnetic signal transmission, whereby, with a poor antenna (which does not bring in the primary (first) signal strongly enough), you see delayed 'ghost reflections' on the screen.
Essentially what is going on here is that the upcoming signal, as it reflects off the ocean-air interface, is 'auto-convolving' with itself, ... or 'correlating' with the opposite moving version of itself.
Now, in psychological terms, .... when the monkey 'apes you', ... the geometry of the process is the same, ... you receive a backward travelling version of the signal you sent out, ... and if you change or innovate your signal, and the monkey continues to ape yo and reflect these changes and innovations, ....you can sense the 'correlation' between this 'ghost reflection' of yourself and your own 'imagined behavior'. Thus, you will conclude, ... 'that's what I look like', ... and 'snapshot' that attitudinal conversion from the implicit to the explicit (i.e. the 'that's who I am' snapshot) and put it over on the 'E' side of the things, ... with your explicit knowledge of your experience.
Henri Poincaré describes this 'thrust and parry' learning process in his essay from Science & Method, 'The Relativity of Space', a copy of which can be accessed at http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm
So the important thing about the seismic exploration example, was the mapping between the explicit, primary signal, and the ghost train and the fact that where you have one you have the other since they are simply the reciprocals of each other in a relativistic in-and-out space-time configuration.
And in pysychology, as in seismic exploration, ... what we are looking for is EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE of the material structure of things, as inferred by the IMPLICIT RELATIONAL INTERFERENCE PATTERNS of their motional co-dynamic.
* * *
... Returning from our diversion into the analogue of seismic exploration,.... we were saying that when we are young, our 'E' will be relatively underdeveloped so that our 'B' will be the ladder where we put most of our weight on, which means that we will be in 'apeing' mode' or 'modeling mode' most of the time, ... and in the process of 'apeing', ...in our detection of 'inward travelling and outward travelling' motional signal correlation, we will be building our 'E' repository of explicit knowledge of our experience.
As we get older, we will shift more of our weight over to the 'E' ladder and accept very little from our 'ghost train' or 'apeing signal' of 'B', even though 'B' is our primary base of consciousness.
You could say that the extremes are, on the one hand 'bigotry' where we stick firmly to our 'E' knowledge and are seen as 'hard' and 'flinty' and suspicious of new ideas and uncompromising, and, on the other hand, 'innocence' or where we are seen as naive and fully trusting and compromising, embracing everything which is new to us.
Of course, since we have the capacity to 'float' in the middle, as we 'rotate', ... in the gap between these two extremes, we can continue to balance them out.
Now, here's the key point. If we see ourselves as 'people of nature', ... if our inner-outer is with reference to nature, ... then since nature is continuously evolving and we are a part of nature, this will put us into a continuing 'learning mode' for as long as we are 'alive'.
But, if we see ourselves as 'people of a lesser empire', ... if our 'inner-outer' is referenced to a secondary, synthetic empire, ... then if that 'empire' becomes a static, controlling 'colonial' structure, ... and our actions are determined by the regulatory procedures of that lesser empire, ... then we shall be forced to put most of our weight on 'E' and become hard, flinty, suspicion and uncompromising, since the 'B' side of our experiencing will 'dry up' (imagine being marooned in a purely mechanical universe, as we are trying to build for ourselves, it seems).
This was oneof the points emerging with respect to the 'The British Empire'; i.e. that it had become a static, controlling colonial structure and so the very name had a lot of accumulated baggage and had to go, ... even if the reality did not go. The 'collective consciousness' of the overall society was thus pressed disproportionately towards their 'E', ... thus transforming them towards hard, flinty, suspicious and uncompromising.
Another point about the Empire Games, was that inside a sub-empire (inside of nature which is the primary and evolving empire), there is also a synthetic notion of 'evolution' which is called 'competition'. But these 'competitive games' inside of the abstract, sub-empires of culture or community, are simplifications of evolution which are exposed to inconsistency by virtue of Goedel's incompleteness theorems, i.e.;
"There is no constructive procedure that will prove axiomatic theory to be consistent."
Thus, Jim Peters, by following a constructive procedure within the sub-empire competitive evolution framework (the emergence of new records and new winners), nearly killed himself. His actions were fully in concert with the logic of the sub-empire, but were in conflict with the logic of nature. Yet, all of the presuppositions of the sub-empire had to be, initially, sourced or abstracted from the logic of nature, since there is no other source.
The essay 'Yin Masters and The Doctors of Yin' says this same thing in a variety of slightly different ways. 'Yin' or the containing space-time is the source of 'Yang', the 'apparent' explicit structure. Our consciousness enables us to abstract 'Yang' from 'Yin' and, by a constructive procedure, approximate 'Yin' in fixed terms.
LET'S BE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO 'NEED' FOR AN EXPLICIT NOTION OF 'YANG' OTHER THAN A PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED SINCE WE COULD CONCEIVE OF EVERYTHING IN TERMS OF THE SELF-REFERENTIAL CO-DYNAMICS OF THE FEATURES OF YIN.
But since 'Yin' is continually in motion, 'Yang', a psychological construct (as 'actuality space' is to 'possibility space' in pool), can never catch up and there will always be a gap between 'Yang' and 'Yin' and similarly, there will always be a gap between 'E' (explicit knowledge of our experience) and 'B' (behavioral experiencing of the 'Here-and-Now').
Since we cannot see ourselves as others do, ... and by 'we', I refer to an individual, community, culture, nation, corporation or any other sub-empire of nature which we want to consider, .... there is always a danger of 'getting ahead of the beat', as Jim Peters did.
What does this mean?
Consider the synthetic notion of 'time' as a linear, independent dimension. In the above discussion, it has been alluded to that 'something is not quite right' with our use of linear, historic time, ...seeing our behavior, 'B' and our experience 'E' as a 'FUNCTION' of 'TIME'.
What is going on here, if we consider this in the 'wave' domain, is that the 'linear time' view is a 'plane wave' view of the world. The notion of 'B' and 'E', each as an independent function of 'time', imposes a linearity on time and a 'rectangularity' on our perceptual interpretation of them which denies their mutual interference, ... a mutual interference which must arise since, ... according to all of our experience, ... time and motion (spatial displacement) cannot be absolutely separated. When we come to accept that resonance or cyclicity is a basic characteristic of nature, ... a resonance which brings unity to dipolar opposition, our 'perception on perception' is transformed and we start to think about space and time in the same manner as Hermann Minkowski, Einstein's geometry teacher, who, in a famous lecture in 1908, said; "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of unity between the two will preserve an independent reality."
In other words, our traditional and unquestioned western manner of observational representation REDUCES our relativistic sensing of the co-dynamics between ourselves and the constituents of our containing environment, to a 'plane wave' or 'flatscreen' view, ... as in Donald Kunze's discussion, 'Representation' (wgn111.ce.psu.edu/representation/representation.html), where he uses the metaphor of the 'Lucinda', as shown in Albricht Dürer's "The Artist and Model in the Studio".
This reduction to a 'plave-wave' view converts the observation to a virtual image on a flatscreen plane which is perpendicular to a line between the observer and the observed (between the 'subject' and the 'object'). In other words, as Poincaré and Kepler both pointed out, the observer can only EXPLICITLY SEE, in any given moment, the approaching and receding components of motion (azimuth and range changes), and in focusing on these, as in the Dürer painting, he ignores those geometric relationships which concern the 'immersed unity' between observer, object and the containing space within which they are both 'included features'.
It is this 'de-relativized view', stripped of essential subject-object-container relational information, which constitutes the common 'scientific observation'. Finding a way to retain and utilize this 'relativistic' information in representation, was the thrust of Gabor's work on quantum physics compliant information theory. Eric Ingelstam, the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences professor who spoke at the ceremony where Gabor received his Nobel prize for physics, for Holography in 1971 (twenty-seven years after his classic paper, 'The Theory of Communications'), ... put it this way;
"Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Our five senses give us knowledge of our surroundings, and nature herself has many available resources. The most obvious is light which gives us the possibility to see and to be pleased by colour and shape. Sound conveys the speech with which we communicate with each other and it also allows us to experience the tone-world of music.
Light and sound are wave motions which give us information not only on the sources from which they originate, but also on the bodies through which they pass, and against which they are reflected or deflected. But light and sound are only two examples of waves which carry information, and they cover only very small parts of the electromagnetic and acoustic spectra to which our eyes and ears are sensitive.
Physicists and technologists are working continuously to improve and broaden the methods and instruments which give us knowledge about waves which lie OUTSIDE OUR DIRECT PERCEPTION CAPACITY. The electron microscope resolves structures which are a thousand times smaller than the wavelength of visible light. The photographic plate preserves for us a picture of a fleeting moment, which perhaps we may make use of over a long time period for measurements, or it transforms a wave-field of heat rays, X rays, or electron rays to a visible image.
And yet, important information about the object is missing in a photographic image. This is a problem which has been a key one for Dennis Gabor during his work on information theory. Because the image reproduces only the effect of the intensity of the incident wave-field, not its nature. The other characteristic quantity of the waves, phase, is lost and thereby the three dimensional geometry. The phase depends upon from which direction the wave is coming and how far it has travelled from the object to be imaged.
Gabor found the solution to the problem of how one can retain a wave-field with its phase on a photographic plate. A part of the wave-field, upon which the object has not had an effect, namely a reference wave, is allowed to fall on the plate together with the wave-field from the object. These two fields are superimposed upon one another, they interfere, and give the strongest illumination where they have the same phase, the weakest where they extinguish each other by having the opposite phase. Gabor called this plate a hologram, from the Greek holos, which means whole or complete, since the plate contains the whole information. This information is stored in the plate in a coded form. When the hologram is irradiated only with the reference wave, this wave is deflected in the hologram structure, and the original object's field is reconstructed. The result is a three dimensional image. ..."
* * *
... The information that Gabor was including instead of discarding, in his holographic representation, was the 'space-time phase' information. Capturing and retaining this relativistic 'relational interference' information is essential to re-creating the 'reciprocal disposition' identity of the observer and thus enabling the re-constitution of the 'immersed view' in which 'space-aware' relational possibilities are presented in a 'whole-and-part' context, along with the antagonistic 'observer-observed' actualities, or the 'material-causal view' which are fundamentally incomplete in themselves.
The space-time phase information, being stripped out in the formulation of mainstream scientific observation, and being stripped out in the science-validated observational processes of mainstream management, education and regulation (government), condemns the informational sets used in these regimes to the irrecoverably reduced status of non-relativistic, 'euclidian' information, ... it condemns 'time' to the role of a linear chronological ordering and 'space' to the role of an empty container of static material 'thing's.
In the face of the rising dysfunction which follows from our responding to the innately incomplete perception and inquiry of non-relativistic euclidian space and linear time, ... we, the collective who have evolved these reductionist practices and imposed them on our view of nature, must take action in order to restore 'space-time' to its natural participatory role in evolutionary process, ... to restore the rights of youthful possibility which has not yet precipitated into actuality, ... and which, without such restoration, may be 'snookered' and snuffed out prior to having chance to blossom. We must act to overcome our ignoring of how an exclusive focus on, and deliberate management of 'actuality' inductively transforms youthful possibilities, ... 'Here-and-Now' niche personas in their early stages of evolution. The actions we must take are those which will restore our perception and inquiry tools to relativity compliant status, as in the aboriginal tradition, and as in the approach of exceptional teams. This relativistic restoration process 'stands on the ladder' of collective sharing and trust, ... a sharing and trust which invites us to 'come in from the cold' of our 'self-excluding' role of 'parasite of the visible', ... into the warmth of the 'whole-and-part harmony' of the evolving space-time collective known as Nature.
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion:
* * *
 To a Louse, on Seeing One on a Lady's Bonnet, at Church
Ha! whare ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie!
Your impudence protects you sairly:
I canna say but ye strunt rarely,
Owre gauze and lace;
Tho' faith, I fear, ye dine but sparely
On sic a place.
Ye ugly, creepin', blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd, by saunt an' sinner,
How dare ye set your fit upon her,
Sae fine a lady!
Gae somewhere else, and seek your dinner
On some poor body.
Swith, in some beggar's haffet squattle;
There ye may creep, and sprawl, and sprattle
Wi'ither kindred, jumping cattle,
In shoals and nations;
Whare horn nor bane ne'er daur unsettle
Your thick plantations.
Now haud you there, ye're out o' sight,
Below the fatt'rils, snug an' tight;
Na, faith ye yet! ye'll no be right
'Till ye've got on it,
The vera tapmost, tow'ring height
O' Miss's bonnet.
My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose out,
As plump and grey as onie grozet;
O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
Or fell, red smeddum,
I'd gie you sic a hearty doze o't,
Wad dress your droddum!
I wad na been surpris'd to spy
You on an auld wife's flainen toy;
Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,
But Miss's fine Lunardi! fie!
How daur ye do't?
O, Jenny, dinna toss your head,
An' set your beauties a' abread!
Ye little ken what cursed speed
The blastie's makin'!
Thae winks and finger-ends, I dread,
Are notice takin'!
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
And ev'n devotion!
Return to Index of Essays