... the traffic was blocked up for miles and everyone was impatient. Fortunately, I was off the road and on foot. From my position at the side of the road, I watched a four-wheel drive jeep edge off onto the steep and muddy embankment, creeping along, trying to beat the traffic in some way that was not readily apparent. He slid slightly and slowly sideways and as he tried to correct, his rear wheel hung up on a rock and it became apparent he was 'going over'.
I watched the whole scene as if in superslow motion, and as the jeep rolled over and down the long, steep slope, it brought a lot of other stuff with it, ... mud and rocks loosened up in the long rains. I was acutely conscious of the need to get some benchmarks into my head so that I could pinpoint the driver's precise location as it was evident he was going to be buried in the mudslide, ... and buried he was.
I ran down into the depression which flanked the highway to the spot I had mentally marked so as to put some physical marker there before I lost track of it. It was all mud and guck and sopping with water which must have been putting a terrible weight on him. Others were coming now, including some construction workers who had equipment nearby. As everyone hustled about, organizing how they would bring in some earth moving equipment for the rescue, my mind struggled for some way to tell him that we were here, and that we were racing to get him safely out of there.
Grasping at straws, I grabbed the end of what looked like a long stick descending down close to the spot I had estimated he had been buried. I yanked up and down on the stick three times in succession, as a signal, ... I did it again and again. Maybe he would somehow feel the vibrations of it and it would help give him the strength to stay alive. I tried it once again, and this time was astounded to feel it move in response, ... very faintly, but there was no doubt about it. I repeated my action and once again there was a faint response. I called over to the construction guy who was directing the earth removal and showed him what was going on. He looked and listened, but he seemed more intent on getting the man out than playing around with any signalling.
The equipment was starting to do its work and I had to vacate my spot on the pile by the signalling stick. There seemed nothing more I could do except to harmonize all my thoughts and feelings in support of his safe delivery.
I walked away from the immediate area and let my thoughts and feelings flow forth in an intense chorus of empathy and support for him and his safe delivery.
I don't know how much time had passed when I 'came to' and returned to the scene, but by then, there was only the remains of the excavation and no sign of ambulances or police. I walked over to a group of construction workers about a hundred yards away, and as I approached them, I could hear them calmly talking about other matters in no way related. They had apparently not been participants in the rescue action.
I intercepted them walking across the grassy acotement and asked them; 'Do you know what happened to the man who got buried in the mudslide?, .... did they get him out?' It took them a moment to map back from their conversation into what I was talking about, ... and one of them said, ... with no signs of joy, ... 'Yes, they got him out alright.', ... but he had shot himself.'
In a flash, it all clicked into place, ... this aggressive, adventurous man that I had seen so briefly, radiating independence and self-reliance, ... definitely not the profile of someone who would meet his end by being pulled down and under, ... he was a man whose last act would inevitably be an assertive act.
But he did not have to die! And my mind went back to the signals I had sent down to him on the stick, ... so primitive, ... three little bursts in succession which could have been O's or S's in morse code, ... the signs of life, the Zero of WahKahn and SsKwan, ... what had he thought? The terrible imagery came to my mind that in his despair, he might have thought that it was a dog pulling playfully on the stick or some other random disturbance, and when the stick had stopped moving, had assumed that whatever had been there moving it had moved on.
<><><>
No doubt one's life and work is woven into one's dreams and while an unfolding of the 'weavery' does not come without reflection, the 'work' email which I sent out shortly after awaking from this dream, was not initially, in my mind, in any way connected to the dream, which I had quickly 'let go of'.
The email was as follows;
* * *
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:10:33
To: koichiro matsuno
From: ted lumley <emiliano@sympatico.ca>
Subject: your notions of time relative to symbiotic space and consciousness
Cc: seb henagulph, matti pitkanen, alan rayner, dirk schmid, martine
dear koichiro,
your notions of time and grammar have very much come into our thoughts
and stimulated discussion in our group, of late.
what i am 'seeing' is that much of science omits consideration of volumetric
form and the manifest 'volumetric resonance' which is seen in our solar system
and in our real-life experience. it seems as this may also be an issue in some
formulations of quantum physics, as well.
in the following note, which i have drafted in a general form, i have tried to
reconcile the notions of 'volumetric harmony' of johannes kepler, which
i have been working on, with your concepts of the different contexts of 'time'.
these notions of 'progressive time' and 'volumetric harmony' i find essential
for developing and understanding of 'community as complex system',
however, the scientific tools seem to be inadequate in most cases.
any feedback, if you have time for it, would be most welcome.
regards,
ted lumley
<><><>
* * *
abstract: --- the different notions of 'time' (present progressive, present,
present perfect) of koichiro matsuno, and the notion of the *dialectic* of
time and space, sequentiality and simultaneity' cited by steve rosen, have
been approached implicitly, from a different direction in the following
discussion; ... from the point of view of 'symbiotic space' (a
volumetrically 'resonant' space) and 'conscious' constituents (who 'tune' to
volumetric resonance); i.e. a space, wherein the space-time dynamics are
characterized by 'self-referentiality'; i.e. wherein the assertive behaviour-induced
simultaneous reciprocal transformation of the shape of dynamic opportunity
space inductively shapes the patterns of assertive behaviour, ... a space in
which the constituents manifest an awareness that their assertive behaviours
inductively transform their opportunities.
mainstream science, by the use of differential equations and descriptions of
physical phenomena formulated within single reference frame contexts (single
observer contexts), ... effectively converts symbiotic space to
non-symbiotic space and conscious constituents to unconscious constituents.
(i.e. 'reduces' the 'present progressive' to the 'present perfect'.)
meanwhile, the 'wisdom of the ancients', as sustained in native traditions,
for example, recognizes the innate inadequacy of single reference frames
(single observer perspectives) in characterizing symbiotic space, and
utilizes multiple reference frame based techniques (e.g. sharing circles) to
're-vivify' the multiple 'present perfect' single observer perspectives of
explicitly framed dynamics, into an implicit 'present progressive'
'living landscape' portrayal as we experience it in nature.
* * *
~^~~^~~^~
the weakness in mainstream science, relative to developing an understanding
of 'community as complex system', is a general weakness relative to
understanding of all manner of 'symbiotic systems', ... a weakness which is
also present relative to developing an understanding of our solar system.
it can be specified as follows;
1. many systems such as the system of man living on the surface of a sphere
or the system of planets living in symbiosis with the sun, are characterized
by multiple constituents moving, in effect, within a finite and unbounded
subspace.
2. in a finite and unbounded space, the assertive actions of the
constituents simultaneously, reciprocally, induce transformation in the form
of their unoccupied containing space ('reciprocal disposition' in einstein's
terms in 'geometry and experience') and there can thus be no purely
'assertive' understanding of the space-time dynamics in these subspaces.
an analogy here is the game of pool which cannot be understood in terms of
assertive shots since the shape of opportunity space, which is simultaneous,
reciprocally transformed by assertive dynamics, is an overriding
consideration which gates and modulates the assertive behaviours of the
constituents.
3. in a finite and unbounded space occupied by assertive agents, the shape
of unoccupied space inductively shapes the pattern of assertive movement
which simultaneously, reciprocally transforms the shape of unoccupied space
(i.e. the system of containing space and constituents is 'self-referential',
... space is a participant in physical phenomena).
4. in order to navigate in a finite and unbounded space, the constituent
must take into account the inductive influence of its assertive actions on
the space-time dynamical configuration it is 'driving through'. in the pool
analogy, the shape of unoccupied space inductively shapes the pattern of
ball movements, and the movement of any ball simultaneously, reciprocally
changes the shape of opportunity space for all balls, and thus inductively
influences their patterns of motion which in turn simultaneously,
reciprocally transforms the shape of opportunity space which 'presents' to
the assertive navigator.
5. we can refer to finite and unbounded space as 'symbiotic space' since all
movement is, at the same time, 'purposive assertion and opportunity
inducing' (i.e. one asserts volumetrically into opportunity opened up by
others and in so doing, one opens up opportunity for others to assert
into.). some properties of symbiotic space are;
(a) the 'single reference frame' based perception ('single observer based
perception') of a constituent of symbiotic space is innately inadequate in
characterizing the space-time dynamics in symbiotic space since the dynamics
the constituent sees 'in front of him' are not 'in their own right' but have
enfolded within them the inducted influence of his assertive movements.
(b) in order to account for his own inductive influence, the constituent
(assertive agent) must have access to an 'outside-inwards' view which
includes himself in the picture so that he can intuit the inductive
relationship between his assertive actions and the transforming shape of the
dynamic opportunity space which he sees in front of him (i.e. which he sees
from his 'self-centered' perspective, rather than in an 'aperspectival'
centerless way)..
(c) if the constituent 'assertive agents' are all capable of adaption based
on intuiting the relationship between their assertive movement and dynamic
opportunity space, ... then the taking into account of the inductive
reciprocal effects on overall system transformation equates to engaging with
the collective consciousness of the constituency' (e.g. this is in effect
goes on in the native sharing circles where multiple observer reference
frame views of the same phenomena are brought into connection in the mind).
6. it is possible to characterize a 'space' in terms of its being
'symbiotic' or 'non-symbiotic' as follows;
... a space is symbiotic if observation of the constituent dynamics within a
single reference frame by a constituent within that reference frame is
INADEQUATE for predicting the evolution of the space-time dynamics within
that space (i.e. due to assertive-behaviour inducing simultaneous reciprocal
transformation of dynamic opportunitys space.)
....a space is non-symbiotic if observation of the constituent dynamics
within a single reference frame by a constituent within that reference frame
is ADEQUATE for predicting the evolution of the space-time dynamics that
space. (i.e. due to the infinity of space or the boundedness of the
subspace, as in the case of a pool table with no 'banks' where the balls
would simple drop off into nowhere or be 'absorbed' by the boundary).
7. not only is the surface of the earth a 'symbiotic space' but so is the
space of the solar system as the footnote from kepler's 'harmonice mundi'
attests [1]. [what we loosely call a heliocentric view is actually a
combination of the geocentric view, from which we extract the ratios of the
orbital extremes (mercury and venus) as a basis for a 'true distance
measure' reference frame, and where the sun-centric view provides relative
space-time phase angles out of the context of 'true distance'. as kepler
noted [1a], the while the different reference-frame views of the space-time
dynamics of the planets cannot be reconciled on the basis of 'true
distances', they come together on the basis of space-time phase.]
8. accounting for the constituent's inductive as well as assertive effects
in a symbiotic space equates to a shift away from 'assertive action
management' to 'inductive opportunity management'. in 'inductive
opportunity management, the constituent 'references his movements to' the
'shape of dynamic opportunity space' which means that the consciousness of
the other constituents is included in the 'transfer function' he is
intuitively trying to develop between his assertive actions and the shape of
dynamic opportunity space. as the analogy of pool illustrates, in order to
manage the evolution of the system, the individual must, by bringing the
multiple views of the constituents seen from their respective reference
frames into connection in his mind, become the 'aperspectival' mind of the
collective conscious.
9. 'consciousness' can now be defined in the reverse terms of 'symbiotic
space'; i.e. consciousness is the quality of the constituents of a space
which makes that space 'symbiotic', ... where the constituents are aware of
the inductive influence of their assertive behaviour on the shape of the
dynamic opportunity space in which they are immersed, and which induces them
to assert themselves.
10 'consciousness' is thus the ability to, 'in effect', recognize the
historical relationship between the actions of the assertive agent and the
simultaneous, reciprocal, inductive influence of these actions on the
opportunity space in which the agent is an immersed participant-constituent.
11. according the theory of kepler, the sun and planets 'were conscious' by
this definition and the space was 'symbiotic' (volumetrically harmonious).
however, as poincaré [2] has pointed out, newton's laws removed the
'historicity' or 'present progressive' quality of 'time' and substituted
'globally synchronous' or 'unconscious' 'time'. note that historic time is
not 'asynchronous'; i.e. it is not the simple opposite of synchronous time,
but is bound up with the shape of space.
12 framing natural physical phenomena on earth or in the solar system in the
'present perfect' as is the proclivity of mainstream science; i.e. within a
single reference frame and globally synchronous time, amounts to the
converting of space from 'symbiotic' to 'non-symbiotic' and the converting
of the constituents of space from 'conscious' to 'unconscious'.
13. rather than deal with the issue of the inadequacy of single reference
frame views, there is an attempt by mainstream science to simply insist that
'non-symbiotic' space characterizes nature. for example, in current
discussion on 'tycho's illusion', which exposes the non-reconcilability of
the geocentric and heliocentric views of system dynamics, includes the
following comments;
"This case ['Tycho's Illusion'] illustrates the danger of overlooking
reference frames as a fundamental aspect of cognitive coding." . . .
Laurence Harris, Psychology Department, York University
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?9.33
"The episode [Tycho's illusion] therefore provides a remarkable illustration
of how far a cognitive illusion can actually influence significant beliefs.
. . . we can also learn a sobering lesson about how far mere logic can be
counted on to change belief when entrenched intuitions go against it. "
Howard Margolis, Harris School Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc-bin/newpsy?9.32
"All movement has to be specified in a single reference frame (see Harris,
Zikovitz, & Kopinska 1998 for a recent review), but although it is a simple
matter to convert from one frame to another mathematically, only one can be
used at a time." (Laurence Harris Psychology Department York University,
Commentary on Margolis [tycho's illusion] on Cognitive-Illusion)
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psyc-bin/newpsy?9.33
14. to restrict the representation of symbiotic codynamics (involving
simultaneous assertive-inductive effects) to a single reference frame is to
substitute the 'present perfect' for the 'present progressive' and remove
the symbiotic aspect of the space and the consciousness aspect of the
constituent (awareness of the simultaneous reciprocal inductive
transformation effect of its assertive behaviour on the shape of its dynamic
opportunity space).
15. summary: --- the different notions of 'time' (present progressive, present,
present perfect) of koichiro matsuno, and the notion of the *dialectic* of
time and space, sequentiality and simultaneity' cited by steve rosen, were
approached implicitly, from a different direction in the above
discussion; ... from the point of view of 'symbiotic space' (a
volumetrically 'resonant' space) and 'conscious' constituents (who 'tune' to
volumetric resonance); i.e. a space, wherein the space-time dynamics are
characterized by 'self-referentiality'; i.e. wherein the assertive behaviour-induced
simultaneous reciprocal transformation of the shape of dynamic opportunity
space inductively shapes the patterns of assertive behaviour, ... a space in
which the constituents manifest an awareness that their assertive behaviours
inductively transform their opportunities.
mainstream science, by the use of differential equations and descriptions of
physical phenomena formulated within single reference frame contexts (single
observer contexts), ... effectively converts symbiotic space to
non-symbiotic space and conscious constituents to unconscious constituents.
(i.e. 'reduces' the 'present progressive' to the 'present perfect'.)
meanwhile, the 'wisdom of the ancients', as sustained in native traditions,
for example, recognizes the innate inadequacy of single reference frames
(single observer perspectives) in characterizing symbiotic space, and
utilizes multiple reference frame based techniques (e.g. sharing circles) to
're-vivify' the multiple 'present perfect' single observer perspectives of
explicitly framed dynamics, into an implicit 'present progressive'
'living landscape' portrayal as we experience it in nature.
<><><>
[1] In his original untranslated original words in 'Harmonice Mundi' (1619),
Kepler says;
"Nun aber tragen zur Vervollkommnung der Welt mehr die Gesamtharmonien aller
Planeten bei als die einzelnen Harmonien bei je zwei und die Paare von
Harmonien bei je zwei benachbarten Planeten. Denn die Harmonie ist
gewissermaßen ein Band der Vereinigung. Es liegt aber eine weitergehende
Vereinigung vor, wenn alle Planeten miteinander eine Harmonie bilden, als
wenn immer je zwei für sich in doppelter Weise harmonieren. Im Widerstreit
dieser Harmonien mußte daher von den beiden Harmoniereihen, die die
Planetenpaare miteinander bilden, die eine oder andere nachgeben, damit die
Gesamtharmonien aller bestehen konnte."
Translation: "Now, the 'harmony-of-the-whole of all the planets contributes
more to the perfection of the world than the single harmonies by twos and
the pairs of harmonies by the twos of neighbouring planets. For harmony is,
so to speak, a volume [containerful] of unity. A deeper unity yet is
presented, when all the planets form a harmony with each another, as when
just two at a time harmonize in a bivalent manner. In the interference of
these harmonies deriving from the dual harmonic line-ups, which the pairs of
planets form with each another, the one or the other must give way (yield),
so that the harmony-of-the- whole can prevail."
* * *
[1a.] kepler's comment on the primacy of space-time phase relationships
(volumetric form) over 'true trajectories' (i.e. the inference that solar
system space is 'symbiotic' or 'volumetrically resonant'.
"Therefore with everything reduced to one view, I concluded rightly [287]
that the true journeys of the planets through the ether should be dismissed,
and that we should turn our eyes to the apparent diurnal arcs, according as
they are all apparent, from one definite and marked place in the world ---
namely, from the solar body itself, the source of movement of all the
planets: and we must see, not how far away from the sun any one of the
planets is, nor how much space it traverses in one day (for that is
something for ratiocination and astronomy, not for instinct), but how great
an angle the diurnal movement of each planet subtends in the solar body, or
how great an arc it seems to traverse in one commen circle described around
the sun, such as the ecliptic, in order that these appearances, which were
conveyed to the solar body by virtue of light, may be able to flow, together
with the light, in a straight line into creatures, which are partakers of
this instinct, as in Book IV we said the figure of the heavens flowed into
the foetus by virtue of the rays."
[2] Poincaré, on the substitution of global synchronous time for ontogenic time.
As Poincaré says in "Science and Hypothesis" in the chapter "Hypotheses in
Physics", subsection "Origin of Mathematical Physics", ...
"We recognise at the outset that the efforts of scientists have always
tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by our experience
into a large number of elementary phenomena.
And to do this in three different ways : first, with respect to time.
Instead of taking into account the progressive development of a phenomenon
as a whole [which would clearly include geometrodynamical or 'ontogenic'
continuity into its space-time containing environment], we simply seek to
connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We assert that the
present state of the world depends only on the immediate past, without being
directly influenced, so to speak, by the memory of a more distant past.
Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession
of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down "its differential
equation" ; for the laws of Kepler, we substitute the laws of Newton."
The 'imposition' of differential equations thus excises the constituents
from their ontogenic origins, making them falsely appear as 'independent',
... independent of their own birthing parentage and ancestry, ... their
ontogenic history which connects them and everything with everything else.
We can visualize this in terms of the volumetric harmony manifest in
galaxies, the solar system and in terrestrial landscapes, ... this
volumetric harmony speaks to the 'living nature' of the purely implicit
(relational) landscape within which we are immersed participating
constituents. This purely implicit and non-explicitly articulable
'landscape' which we have been calling 'dynamic opportunity space' is none
other than 'ontogenic time', the memory of the implicit relational codynamic
we call 'life'. Ontogenic time, the inarticulable relational codynamic, the
'evolutionary essence', is what we strip out by the imposition of, in
Einstein's terminology, 'the frightening ghosts of inertial reference frame
and absolute time' or, in Poincaré's terminology, by the 'substituting of
the 'differential equation'- the laws of Newton, for the [volumetric harmony
based] laws of Kepler'.
While Poincaré clearly shows that this substitution of 'absolute time' for
'ontogenic time' (which is bound up in 'space-time' transformation), makes
mathematical physics an unnacceptable base for the 'natural sciences' (e.g.
evolutionary biology, psychology etc.), ... his message does not appear to
'have carried' and the 'rationality' which is based on this simplifying
assumption of 'absolute clockworks time' for the 'space-time continuum based
'ontogenic time', has been pushed well beyonds its innate limits.
[3] steve rosen/koichiro matsuno dialogue excerpt in email from seb
henagulph (11/28/2000)
http://bio.nagaokaut.ac.jp/~matsuno/apm298.html
Steve Rosen's reply to Gendlin and Matsuno, on the issue of signal
transmission and time:
We all (Matsuno, Gendlin, myself, others?) agree that interaction
cannot be based on the *instantaneous* transmission of signals. This
implies that the clocking of interaction cannot be synchronized by a
universal "clock-across-the-world," as in the Newtonian-Kantian
modern clock. Interacting agents cannot co-exist simultaneously in
this way. In the conventional way of thinking about signal
transmission, which includes Einstein's modernist resolution of the
problem of relative reference frames, time is "spatialized," which
means that the universal clock, at one level or another, is still
presupposed. The postmodern, relativistic alternative to this is to
emphasize the irreducible *non*simultaneity of interacting agents.
Here agents are separated by a temporal chasm that makes it hard to
understand how they could interact at all. In such an approach, it
seems that a signal could not survive its passage from one
participant ot another. Of course, somehow it does survive. We do
have signal transmission (contra the implications of postmodernism),
yet there is evidently no universal space-time continuum to ground it
in (contra modernism). Given the latter, an effective account of
signal transmission would have to depart considerably from the
standard formulation. Matsuno appears to imply this when he says
that "the signal process could survive only in the present
progressive mode," for, conventionally, signal transmission is
described in the present tense or present perfect tense, which would
be consistent with modernism's non-processual space-time continuum.
I believe what needs to be clarified here is that, for the
propagation of signals to occur, the process could not be governed by
the sheer temporal succession of postmodernism any more than by the
pure spatial simultaneity of modernism.
How about thinking of it this way:
The old time is indeed *linear*: we think of it in terms of a
"time line" marked off by a series of extensionless points arranged in
strict sequence. It is in this "bird's eye" view that time can be
CATEGORIALLY SEPARATED from space. The former entails pure
sequentiality whereas the latter is strictly limited to simultaneity.
In the old view, time and space, sequentiality and simultaneity,
never "cross," never interpenetrate one another (not even in
Einstein's "integration" of time and space). But process time or
eventing has "thickness" (people like Bergson, Heidegger and Merleau-
Ponty -- each in quite distinctive ways -- have said as much). To me
this means that, in eventing/kleinbottling, a *dialectic* of time and
space, sequentiality and simultaneity, is enacted. Bearing this in
mind, when we say that "eventing takes time," if, by "time," we mean
sequentiality alone, i.e. time AS OPPOSED TO space, then it seems
we *would* be falling back into the old time.
Steve Rosen ROSEN-S@POSTBOX.CSI.CUNY.EDU
[Matsuno]
For the time being, let me classify our attitudes addressing the issue of
time in relation to the grammatical tense we have to employ in any case.
There seems to be at least three choices:
(1) time internal to the present progressive tense,
(2) time inherent to the present tense,
(3) time read into the present perfect tense.
Time (1) is agential, dialectic, eventing and Kleinbottling. Time (2) is the
old and the modernist's time, and time (3) is for reading and deciphering
the record out there. To be sure, there are many nice aspects with time
internal to the present progressive tense. So far, so good. However, a new
twist would arise once we ask the question of how can we describe time
internal to the present progressive tense in statements in the present
tense.
At first sight, it seems to be impossible to reduce the present
progressive to the present tense. But, there are at least two loopholes. One
is to make a tautological statement in the present tense in terms of an
equivalent noun or adjective (e.g., "time internal to the present progresive
tense is agential"). Another is to employ a negative statement in the
present tense which, if skillfully framed, can effectively imply a positive
statement in the present progressive tense. Or, a mixture of the two. Gene's
"TAKES NO MORE TIME THAN THE TIME IT MAKES" happens to be this case. This
understanding is different from the interpretation phrased in a positive
statement in the present mode as "time is just what ev x ev generates",
since the latter interpretation has already presumed what the product "x"
would imply even before actual eventing. If the product is accepted, some
topological structure of time specified in the present mode would have to
already be there.
Nonetheless, every eventing is unique. This is the reason why I have
sticked to empirical time, that is time internal to the present progressive
tense, phrased in a negative statement in the present tense. No clock takes
more time than the time it makes through reading and moving the others. That
is to say, the time each local clock takes is not time inherent to the
present tense. My local time has always been meant time internal to the
present progressive tense. Of course, it would be desirable to phrase time
internal to the present progressive tense in a positive statement. What I
have done in my Protobiology is, I believe, to relate it to a positive
statement framed in the present perfect tense. [Koichiro Matsuno]
* * *
Well, that was the email and you've heard the dream. Tonight, and it's now past 1:00 a.m. on the 30th of November, ... I reflected on the dream and the note and the note and dream.
I had meant to say in the note, that there was another 'principle' buried in there, ... the principle that one could not detect a 'symbiotic space' from the outside. It was necessary to have observers both on the outside and the inside at the same time, ... observing the same dynamics and comparing what they say. It was only in this manner that the observer on the inside would be able to tell that he was in a living, symbiotic space, ... if his view of the same things differed from the view of the outside observer. If his view of what was happening in 'inner space' was the same as the outside observer's view from 'outer space', then the space he was in was 'non-symbiotic space', ... 'dead space'. But if the outside observer told him that he was engaged in a codynamic with his containing space, ... and it looked different from the outside than what he was describing from the inside, ... then both observers would know that the inner observer was in a 'symbiotic space', ... a 'living space'.
When we look out into space, we might notice some aggregations of asteroids or planets or we might notice some zones which seem strangely devoid of anything. But it will be impossible to tell from the outside whether those aggregations or disaggregations are by chance or whether those spaces are purely mechanical spaces where 'things assert' without any awareness of the inductive influence of their assertions on their containing space, ... without any awareness of whether it 'feels harmonious or dissonant' to be in that space or whether by their assertions they can cultivate harmony or dissonance in their containings space. If they don't believe that their assertions will induce any transformation in their containing space, ... then their space will not be 'symbiotic', ... it will be mechanical, 'dead' space. But if they 'assert' in the full conscious expectation that their assertions will induce resonant transformation in their containing space, ... then the space they occupy will indeed by 'symbiotic', 'living space'.
Mainstream science is telling us that 'assertion' is all she wrote in the space we live in, ... that our assertions are not accompanied by any inductive transformation of our containing space, that we are not empowered to engender harmony or dissonance in our containing space. That we are mechanical inhabitants of dead empty space.
Many of us are taking a gun to our heads as a result.
<><><>