Tem Noon’s Guide to Consciousness

InfiniteInside3Consciousness is the lens through which we encounter the world, encounter ourselves, and on occasion encounter our own consciousness. I strive to be clear and give you the benefit of my experience in exploring consciousness, but these can be at best suggestions. You are acquainted with the details of your own consciousness in ways that will always be beyond my words, and even beyond your own words. Further, deep encounters with your own consciousness will include insights into the foundations of the physical world, and the nature of existence. We will also have to look at the whole range of issues that come up around the questions of “Identity”, and the strange case of narrative that runs through our lives.

Consciousness is the experience of Awareness in One Mind, Now

To be clear, by consciousness, I am talking about your immediate awareness of any and all of your senses, plus whatever experiences are recalled or anticipated in some kind of contemplation or extrapolation of those senses. In any given day, we go through many different modes of consciousness, many of which correspond to actions. The more we act in specific modes, the less we notice moving into and out of those states or modes of mind, and the easier it is to have another mode of consciousness working in parallel. Walking is a mode of consciousness which coordinates our whole body’s motion. Eating is a mode of consciousness, which also coordinates a host of activities of the body, which is so automatic that we hardly think about it … until we bite our tongue or cheek in a momentary consciousness gaff. Sleeping and dreaming are modes of consciousness, even if you don’t remember your dream, the consciousness of the dream is just as appropriately called consciousness as your waking self, it is simply aware of a dream environment, rather than revealed through the senses of the body.

I’d also like to be specific, that I am talking about “Software” of the mind, not “The brain” as an organ. All of my references to mind and consciousness are references to how I am experiencing consciousness, not a description from an external observer over my mental biology.

When we are talking about human consciousness, it exists in one person at a time; an experiencer, an observer. We are focusing on real experiences, real patterns and the content of lived experience. Groups of people are groups of consciousnesses, a group is not one larger consciousness. Ever. In any context. Computer artificial intelligence, as of this writing, is not and cannot be consciousness, any more than a car is conscious. It is interesting that the driver becomes the consciousness of the car, and the car becomes the body of the driver. Still one consciousness, supplied by a flesh-and-blood human. You also can’t have half a consciousness. Even children, even babies, are complete consciousnesses. Experience is what we call life happening to an aware consciousness. Awareness is the quanta of consciousness. It is the definition of a being, one that is aware. I am talking about the flavor of consciousness which we, as humans are familiar with, by definition human consciousness. Each of us has a whole human being’s experience every moment. In this way, we have as complete a view of the universe as anyone, and are equipped with cognitive capacity and impetus to watch, remember, and understand the world.

We know ourselves to be a being, and we recognize beings in our field of sense and experience. Each of them we understand based on an understanding of ourself. Even without a specific means of communication, our consciousness resonantes with all beings we see. We can tell a lot about another being watching, because of our own model of our world, based on a life lived.

We may imagine humans, before writing, were ‘thinking out loud’. People never had to learn a language in the same way we think of today, when language is formal and externally defined. The voice was expressed in the context of facial expressions, gestures, body movement, and perhaps song. It was not a language of external meaning or an external authority. The vocalizations were just one part of the social glue, along with sharing food, sharing the protection of fire, and many other social activities. What the vocalizations likely did not do was fill out a person’s understanding of the world. The constraints of the physical world on a person’s life were severe, and depended on knowing what to do in a wide range of circumstances. They had to be able to handle themselves in warm climates and extremely cold environments. They had to be able to make tools and make fire. They had to be able to track game, they needed to anticipate weather and recover from severe events. They had to know what they could eat, and what was poison. The communication with others was never as precise as what they could see, smell, hear, touch, and taste. Science before writing was a personal matter, and the way every person learned was in the many details to which the “Paleolithic Scientists” had to pay attention, because otherwise they would die.

At a certain point, coinciding with the climate becoming stable enough to be seasonably reliable, A specialization was developed by humans, the tool of written language. It may have taken 1000 years to move from simple scratches on bone to count to a vocabulary that included all vocal expressions in use at the time, codified as a language with a specific vocabulary. By that time, it had changed everything.

With every tool that is gained, there is a skill lost. The more powerful the tool, the more profound the loss. This is a self-evident principle, because a tool useful enough to be worth obtaining and using will replace some other activity. The facilities of the tool user will shift to activities which involve the tool. This is true for an individual, it is true over many generations, though the fact that there once was a choice easily gets lost in history, when there is no one alive who remembers a different way to do things. Tools also have side effects, they never do exactly the same thing as the activity which it replaces. In our modern world, we evaluate all kinds of things in all kinds of ways, but the foundation of written language is often seen as the foundation on which we know things, judge things, plan things. A way of life without written language consciousness has been practically lost. At the same time, this text consciousness has come to dominate the modern world, hiding in plane sight as a mode of consciousness that has no alternative.

Text Consciousness

“Text Consciousness” is what I refer to as the intellect, the facility in the mind which translates any words encountered into the emotional, internal meaning as it relates to the reader’s world. Spoken language is evaluated in the same framework, there is little difference today between what is spoken and what is written. The particulars of how text consciousness is experienced is the key human tool which sets people apart from animals. It sets history apart from pre-history. This section describes how it works, from a functional point of view.

It is the part of the mind which deals with all kinds of symbolic, written, and spoken narratives. Text Consciousness could not have existed in this intellectual form without external writing. Estimates of when writing started range from about 6000 years ago to maybe 13,000 years ago. Even if it was double that, Homo Sapiens as a species have existed ten times longer than that, over 200,000 years of being practically identical to the modern population of the world. It doesn’t matter exactly how long, or how the intellect came to be. How was human consciousness structured and experienced before there was written language? Text consciousness facilitates describing and constructing complex systems in the world, yet at the same time Text Consciousness biases and obscures important aspects of the natural world due to essential structures which make the text consciousness functional.

Traces are the forms seen in the world which are recognized and repeated in the mind as text. They are not naturally occurring in the world, they have been written down by a person. Traces are not, in my usage, “Text” in itself. I will use the term “Trace” for what is on paper, or on the screen of a computer, or the words spoken. In order to become what I call “Text”, which is to say meaningful text, it must be read by a person who understands it, and reacts in their consciousness as a word. To read is to repeat the word in the mind, and in that repetition, see the meaning through the word. Text Consciousness is the mode of consciousness which recognizes text, repeats it, and incorporates the meaning of that text into the mind’s model of the world.

Modes of consciousness such as eating, walking, driving a car, or riding a bicycle, all operate in the present moment of the body. Text Consciousness is the mode of consciousness which recognizes speech or traces as what they mean. You could say that text consciousness sees through the text as the retina sees through the lens of the eye and uses what was observed as an update to our “model of the world”.

This model of the world is not a story, it is the sum of all we know. Our consciousness and through it our body is poised to react based on what we know to be the way the world “is”. We see meaning as we recognize any changes each moment. The model is the sum of our understanding of the geometric, social, and physical state of our overall world of concern. This is our personal model of the world, and it is contributed to every meaningful thing that happens, moment to moment. Everything we know is incorporated into this model. Every time we notice anything about anything, our noticing is echoed through our model of the world, and our model of the world is updated. We react to what we just learned, then move on in the knowledge of what the “new” world is like.

When reading, we are typically not memorizing words, we are remembering the new state of the world as told by the text. Sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, we are incorporating the new information into a mental structure full of images, operations, and objects which correspond to what the text is telling us. It is rare, and for most people difficult, to memorize exact words. Typically people understand it, and as they read the last page, last paragraph, last sentence, last word, they say they “understand” the book. It is not really the book that is “understood”, but rather the reader’s impression of the structures the book induced. This seems like the same thing, but there is an important distinction. To say that the book has a single meaning and readers get measurably close or far away from the ‘real’ meaning is only possible if the words have a particular, fixed meaning. I don’t think it can rigorously be determined, ever, what such a meaning “really” was, if it did actually exist. It is, at the very least, an unphysical idea. The intention of the writer has been distilled into just the trace, which is at best like a powdered drink. The trace is like the dry powder. The context of your life, your time and space, is the water. Without the water, you can’t drink the powder. It is a “second derivative” at best from the idea that the writer wanted to express. The means the reader must integrate twice the trace, to reconstitute the meaningful text.

We need to understand more specifically how words have meaning. Many words, the most common words in a given language are useful, and refer to everyday objects and actions in such a way that there is only slight differences in what people mean by those words. However, this attribute of modern language hides an important feature that more properly explains how words are meaningful in our minds, and the mechanisms we employ when understanding specific words that move through our text consciousness into the content of our world model.

Discourse

Text Consciousness is one of the modes of consciousness which contributes to building the model of the world. We can also be more specific about how text is meaningful, by noting the structure of text interactions. Text is always understood in the context of a discourse.

The structure which gives specific meaning to the traces is the discourse between myself, and the ‘other’. Anytime I read a trace, and it appears to my consciousness as Text, the specific significance is coordinated around an ongoing interactive exchange between that writer or speaker, and myself. Both my idea of who wrote it, and the idea of myself, are present in this intellectual bridge structure of discourse. This is the same as understanding the plot in a fictional story. The meaning of words in the story are understood because the unfolding of the plot reveals the characters in the story.

Discourse is used as a term for an exposition by an individual to an audience, or an ongoing discussion between people who know each other. In these cases, we are talking about a structure of the intellectual mind, the text consciousness of an individual. So although we are talking about that individual’s relationship with another specific person or audience, it is important to remember that the discourse is always encountered from one consciousness. While a discourse observed between two people is comprehensible in an abstract way, the discourse is a psychological structure. It is specifically how a human mind converts language into meaning. Each of those individuals is acting within a distinct discourse from their perspective.

In my mind, Even if I encounter words that lack an identifiable source, I will assume one. Whether the source is a particular individual I know well, an individual I don’t know at all, or a category, like a newspaper, a relative, a politician, an advertisement, a scientist, and many others. The meaning of their words is nuanced by my presumptions and expectations based on my history of previous communications with the source. Further, there is a particular self image that is associated with that particular character that I am talking to. The meaning of what I’m hearing is not a detached, or objective meaning of words, but rather an involved, visceral, subjective meaning, as it relates to my specific relationship with the source character. In this way, each discourse consists of at least two characters, and the memory of communication between them, as held in the personal world model.

Writing takes place in the context of this same discourse. As I think of what I want to say to someone, or a wider specific audience, it is my experience with them that informs the process of choosing words. Whatever general communicable idea I am trying to convey, I project it (metaphorically) through the lens of the appropriate discourse, and out come the words, directed in speech, writing, or possibly in some artistic expression at my specific target audience.

For a word to be meaningful in a discourse, we must have encountered it before. The words are not containing meaning, they are an index into our text consciousness, and through the reference found specific to the relevant discourse, a meaning is induced. The meaning is evoked from the model of the discourse, that subset of the model of the world.

Understanding this basic structure of communication and discourse, it is easy to see why there are misunderstandings. It is appropriate to note that in any conversation there are really at least four characters. The discourse in my mind is between the character I think I am talking to, and the character I think I am. The discourse in the mind of the other is the character they think they are talking to, and the character they think they are. There is no way that the character they think they are talking to is identical to the person I think I am. This is a built-in feature of all language communication.

The Personal World Model

It is likely that we started building our model of the world even before we were born. Sounds of the world, and voices at least are clearly recognized, before there is any awareness of the meaning of specific words. The way babies listen to voices is tuned to quickly start to distinguish words and phrases, and they see in such a way that faces are quickly recognized, and that recognition evokes emotional responses, making clear that the baby is remembering the world, and begins to know themselves and their own reactions as a mirror of their surroundings.

This personal world model, once started, continues to be the central repository for everything we know about everything. The world model is the filter which knows what to do. When we see something, hear something, read something, what we “see” is not simply what is coming in through our senses, but we see what it means, as it is filtered through this model. The model is distinct from memory, in that we may not remember why we react this way to a particular event. Memory is accessed through this world model, but it is possible to be more specific in noticing the distinct features of the model. The world model binds together the things we know, and how we feel Now, what we notice Now. And like the discourse, it is not a neutral world model, but “my” world model. As I know the world, I also know myself. In this case, in this model, this is not an ego knowing, not a story of a character I know as me … this is more the unity of the body, the emotional and vibrational core of biological being. Note a bit of irony here. I am saying that my deepest understanding of the world as a whole, everything I expect and understand about everything in the world, is also my core experience of myself, each moment. The text consciousness acts in the domain of short term memory, about a twenty second window that the text consciousness takes to listen to a sentence, maybe a short paragraph, and turn it into the meaning which can be reconciled with the world model. The world model itself reacts at a moment if it recognizes something. It reacts directly with the emotional charge to act, before the text consciousness can put together meaning from words.

The “Default” Meaning of Text

Without awareness of the structure of discourse, it is easy, even expected in the default world to see meaning in the words printed, displayed on screens, and enunciated in speech. Human consciousness has no need to understand human consciousness as described above. The social pressure to learn, understand, and use language as if there is one standard meaning to words and narratives is the foundation of our social fabric and language structure. We all keep track of the words and meaning we know, and and remember the stories as part of our personal world model. It creates an impression that there are objective meanings, but only because people interact as if this is so. It is expected that people understand as accurate and complete the narrative representations of the physical world. You could say they “believe” it, but it is not necessarily an explicit belief, it is a perspective that has no alternative. It is a belief that few know they believe.

One consequence of our understanding in this way is maintaining ideas about all kinds of things we don’t know. There are many facts and figures about the world as a whole, and every subset of the world. We know some of it, but we also know that we don’t know many things. At the same time, we assume there is someone else who does know these things. This follows from the preconception that knowledge is external, that we absorb information from words, as if words contained knowledge. There is an overriding assumption that someone “out there” knows most things about the world. They know it, or they are figuring it out. This goes for science, and all kinds of other specific fields. It goes for the physics of the very small, and it goes for the universe as a whole. Someone probably knows. This pervasive idea that “someone knows” removes a great deal of responsibility from everyone else. Even though we don’t know who knows, nor do we know what they know, we know that we don’t have to know. There is a feeling that facts are real, that knowledge can be written down, and contained in the narrative, so one person knowing something is almost like everyone being able to know, we just look it up on Google when we must.

Belief is encoded into this model of the world. As we grow up, we learn the stories of science as well as the stories of religion. We learn the stories of our country, of our state, of our gender, of our family. We learn that some stories are believed, others are known and disbelieved. All of this is incorporated into our overall emotional connection and assumptions about the world, how it is, and how other people believe it to be. It is in this context that we mature into an emotional grasp of the world, and with it, the emotional grasp of ourself and the place we occupy in the larger world. This world view assumes knowledge can be contained in words, and more and more of the entire historical text of the human species is accessible on the Internet, it is as if everyone has access to the complete knowledge of all relevant history.

A problem with believing in an external, objective meaning to words is that it implies an objective consciousness which maintains an objective model of the world.

Our gestalt connection to the world is triggered any moment by the appropriate circumstance. We could not be so responsive if we needed to parse text and understand even a short narrative. There are cases where even though we are saying words, for example reciting a poem, or singing a song, we may not at all be thinking of the meaning of those words. The poem is something we have memorized and recited often, so our mind could go on and be thinking about something else. During a song, one might be thinking more about the guitar cords, knowing the words and the melody well enough not to think of them. But words could be a major factor in setting up those reactions, building responses to particular questions. Being ready to make a standard response when we hear a particular phrase, hear a particular song, see a particular logo.

We read involuntarily. If we can read, and we see traces, we repeat the word in our mind, it is difficult to not see what we recognize and react to it with text. And we help the author as much as we can, giving them credit for the thoughts that are in our head after reading their words. As best we can, the default mindset of text is that when I am reading, I am hearing someone else’s thoughts as direct as possible, so the narrative I understanding and the modifications it imposes on our model of the world I don’t take credit for, but feel I am re-creating something which was already prepared by someone else. This is at least misleading (as we’ve reviewed above) and the structures which are constructed in most cases can’t be checked at a level deeper than the granularity of the vocabulary and categories. In most cases those structures, my way of understanding a subject, can well be very different, even if built from the same papers, books, videos. We still have a personal perspective. This doesn’t mean reading books isn’t useful. Certainly it is useful to encounter these expressions of narrative, but it is important to put the operations of reading and writing in perspective, rather than staying simply in the field of knowledge which restricts itself to the imaginary objective and authoritative.

There is no objective view. One could make a case for mathematics. Mathematics and logic are rigorously rule based, such that mathematical representations can be “proved” to have certain properties under specific circumstances. Equations are symbolic representation, but they are not narratives in the same way, because they can represent elaborate, specific, and very general relationships between mathematical ideal objects. They still must be experienced in consciousness one person at a time. It is still necessary to bring to consciousness any equation, any proof to have a lived meaning. The traces on paper are still just meaningless scratches without a consciousness to recognize it. The congruences between the behavior of mathematicians imply that the mathematical ideas are similar, but still each mathematician has their own internal inexpressible bridge between their model of the world, their mental model of the math they are visualizing, and the tools they have available to express it.

There is a fundamental assumed epistemology in the reading of text as external meaning. That is the point that has completely turned human consciousness on its head from where it was when written language began. It does that same over turning with each child who learns english, or any modern language. It places the meaning of words outside of the mind, and outside of the control of the mind. The narration of my life, the identity which I am constantly mulling over and “discussing with myself” is the sum total of all of the story I know of as me. It is as if “I” am a character in a story that is based on a much larger, much wider book that I will never be able to read fully, and within which my own story will be a tiny appendix. To have an identity, it seems I must have it against the horizon of all of those other people, sharing the cultural external and “real” meaning.

The Personal Narrator

The structure of discourse, that what a text means is specific to a particular discourse between characters, is crucial to understanding the modern mind. It is in discourse that the structure of identity is created, in our relation to the people we converse with. There is a special discourse which is also responsible for our inner discourses. This is our internal narrator. This is like the story we tell ourself about ourself, every twenty seconds. Whatever else we are talking about, there is a subtext of who we are, what our place is in the world right now, and what we should do.

I want to resist labeling it “The Ego”, but it is closely related to what is generally categorized as the Ego. To consider whether it is a good term or not is an appropriate illustration of the position of words in our consciousness. In this case, “Ego” has a formal definition, as put forward by Freud. It is a type of psychological jargon. Personally, I don’t know if I am that familiar with the formal definition. I have used the term to describe “the story we tell ourself about ourself”. But I find it not necessarily what others may mean by Ego. It is as if the Ego is an object in our head, without really explaining any mechanism, order, or structure. It is as if the three freudian components of personality, Id, Ego, and Super Ego, were irreducible and distinct. It is a division by vocabulary, which makes it easy for us to talk about certain things, but at the same time it limits us to understanding the mechanisms of consciousness by removing from our notice the ways in which the divisions are not so clear, not so well defined, not appropriate.

A great loss which text consciousness imposes on human consciousness is the stripping of ambiguity through categorization. As above, categories are a powerful tool, and categorization is not in itself inappropriate, since we do see distinctions and boundaries in the natural world, starting with our own body. However, there are subtle limits to categories, which exhibit themselves as paradox and irony. If fully understood, every sentence is ironic, every statement a paradox.

My observations about the narrator, just as my personal model of the world and the other examples I am giving here, at best should be understood as metaphors. It is important to note that I am not saying that mind structures conform to definitions which can be learned. My own exploration into my intuition follows my mind’s operations as best I can, and draws upon what examples I have available to use as guides and metaphors. At best, this is an invitation for you to explore yourself. The words and proposed structures I offer as helpful tools, but I encourage you to abandon them, see past the distinctions you assumed which I may or may not have intended. Everyone who reads this will understand the words in a different way, and further, the structures you investigate in your own mind will have variations which I couldn’t anticipate, and so the words could not prepare you completely. The basic methodology is still sound. It comes down to a self-exploration, which sheds words as it approaches the fundamental structure of the narrator, the source of the string of words we hear, and interact with in our consciousness.

We expect a lot from language. Wherever words come to us, from books, people we meet, television, or computers, the words come into our minds to be repeated by our narrator. As we recognize words, we are repeating them as we understand what they mean, and in so doing release the words, and retain the structure of meaning which the words are building.

The narrator is the proverbial point of the pen for text consciousness. This narrator is the note taker, recognizing the text in the trace as seen through the context of discourse, and creating its interpretation of what it means into a subset, of the world model. There is also a reaction, a narrative which either literally speaks back, or contemplates in words the meaning understood. In this way the narrator is a two way street of text, which then feeds back into the text consciousness structures, reacting as if there was someone else talking, and as if there was someone else listening.

It is remarkable yet true that your life could change forever based on an internal dialogue. Just talking through a problem with no one else around, no external tools can reveal some of the most significant thoughts a person can have. It is in this self-discourse, in this internal conscious contemplation that we can look deeper, beyond the text consciousness, and into the mode of consciousness which makes this possible.

It is the consciousness of the paleolithic scientist, the scientist who rather than use categories to separate the world into components before observing, first observed, and remembered without making any categorical assumptions.

The next section will introduce Vortext, (exactly everything which is not Text), and Vortext Consciousness. Vortext can be read like text, and this was how the Paleolithic Scientist understood the world. Next time.

Text Consciousness and the Field of Text

Although text consciousness exists in what I described as a “twenty second thick slice” of short term memory, it has access to a lifetime’s experience worth of words. As it reads specific words it finds, reacts to them with words of an internal narrator, and expresses itself with a vocabulary gained and remembered in the world model. Text could be thought of as having a backing store of images and voice memories which are converted to text efficiently, even if they are not exactly text in memory. In this way Text Consciousness creates in it’s imagination a field of meaning. This field of meaning is not the actual world of continuity (which we will refer to below through an understanding of Vortext) but a field of abstract objects, which are intellectually distinct from one another.

In this text field, all words are objects, even when the meaning of those words might be actions or correlations, or any number of distinctions which words can mane. The word is an object of meaning. The Field of text is the space in which the text consciousness is aware. The Field of Text is the moment as it is presented to the Awareness in Text Consciousness, and text consciousness reacts to it when that field is projected through the appropriate discourse. The field of text is the sum of all text present in the working memory of text consciousness, from words read, words someone may have said, and the words present in any internal dialogue, with at least some auxiliary other input from other modes of consciousness which may be going on simultaneously.

It is inherently socially expected that we accept the identity which is constructed through our Text consciousness. That identity could be understood at the most fundamental level as an example of a Being in the Field. In the natural world, the Being in the Field (of Beings) is always you, the observer. The Being in the Field metaphor can be used for both real beings (as we will see below), as well as abstract being. Being in the field is a self-repeating pattern, where every being is built of a Field of smaller beings. Further, the pattern is repeated externally and internally. The Being is present in an external field through which it sees other beings. The Being also maintains an image of the field internally, storing the states of all known other beings.

At the level of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules, there is a perfect balance which is maintained, but it is the tiny amount of difference between the being and the field which allows the next level to create even larger differences, and eventually new levels.

The Text Consciousness is an abstract being, alive and meaningful in the abstract field of other text consciousnesses, but it is crucial to remember that this field is an internal, personal field of meaning. The narrative which is understood through the text consciousness reads the world through a discourse, and the meaning is evoked from their internal field of text, in consideration of the people they think they are in discourse with.

I mentioned earlier this feature of discourse, the field gives more insight into the situation. Because the Text consciousness is imagination, and Text field is abstract, then the people that a given person “thinks about” are not the real person out there in the world, but rather a character which is for me everything I know, expect, and remember, about that other person. A character in the story which I am telling myself about myself.

Vortext: Exactly everything which is not Text

I do not create a new term lightly. I have considered existing terms and phrases which amount to the same meaning in my own understanding of the subject. However, my main criticism of many existing explanations and detailed examinations of consciousness is that they are not clear enough, not broad enough in certain ways, and not specific enough in others. On the point of “thinking” and “narrative” I find them as a group to be ambiguous at exactly the point where they need to be very very specific. It is for this reason that I feel it is useful to create this term, to create a category with a precise edge at a crucial distinction. Written language changed everything about the human experience of consciousness. Most likely not right away, I expect it took a few generations, but the children were eventually learning language so early, they had no memory of what a language was like which was not defined and bound to words that could be literally written in stone. The mode of Text consciousness is not the intended effect of Text, it is not what the pioneers of written language were intending to do, necessarily. They were focused on things like counting, identifying, and communicating. Text consciousness was a side-effect.

“Vortext is not what I do, it’s what does me.”

This is one of my guiding principles, so that I am reminded to be clear about what Vortext is, and what it is not. Because my consciousness is not text, then that consciousness itself is Vortext. The mind and the world are not joined, yet not separated. There are distinctions between objects, yet there is the entanglement necessary to see changes in energy in the world. Each photon represents a link, Observing the photon is observing a change which is balancing the change which was relayed by the photon. A photon is a balancing operation. Vortext is first and formost the non-dualness of everything. We read distinctions in the world, reading Vortext like text for survival information, we do so without actually losing our focus on the underlying connection. The necessity of continuity, even in the face of the quantization.

In Vortext, there is always a paradox, because it is complete enough to cancel itself out.

The Paleolithic Scientist did not have to struggle with Vortext as a dilema, because the implicit assumptions of Text were not there. Life was a dance through the wonder of seeing so much, and remembering it not because they knew what it was, but because they didn’t know, and after seeing it, they would spend their life implicitly looking for clues. In a moment they might recognize Vortext that answered some question that had been in the back of their mind for years. Any mistakes could precipitate disasters. Science was a personal responsibility, and the model of the world was not created out of narratives that could be shared, but from an individual’s direct relationship with the world of their senses, the Vortext Consciousness.

Text, meaningful Text, exists when a reader recognizes words through a discourse, and understands them based on the changes which they imply in the state of the reader’s world model. Text never exists in the world, it is a construct of the imagination, and is not meaningful until it is understood through the Text consciousness, its evoked meaning updating the reader’s model of the world.

Vortext I define as exactly everything which is not Text. Vortext is physicality. Everything which appears as an object, as energy, anything which can be noticed by any of the senses, is Vortext. The Body, as something with extension and duration in the physical world is Vortext. Nearly everything that happens in the mind, in the field of Consciousness, is Vortext. The only thing that is not Vortext is that content of Text consciousness.

Reading Vortext

Vortext, in many cases, can be read as if it were text. What I mean by this is that even though Vortext is not deliberately created to convey information, the actual way natural shapes form does contain quite a bit of information about the world. Vortext is not symbolic. Is is not a sign indicating a signified. It is self-signifying. It is a form which itself is the embodiment of its specificity. Energy leaves a trail of change wherever it goes. Every change is recorded, Vortext is the product of every change.

Take tree rings, as an example. They contain several pieces of information about the life of the tree, a record of climate in that area. With chemical analysis, it could give precisely dated information about the atmosphere. Crystal growth and composition, stone erosion, sand shapes, waves on the ocean. All have information to give, if you know how to read it.

Vortext Consciousness is what I would call the thinking mode of the Paleolithic mind, before there was writing. What modern people would do with their text consciousness and internal narrator, the paleolithic scientist had Vortext consciousness. Before there was an external authority, each person knew innately that they had to watch, learn, and remember. This was how they knew how world around them worked. The cost of not paying attention could well be death in many ways, and they understood innately. They didn’t understand it as a story, they understood as a lived imperative. The underlying model of the world, the trigger for emotions, is Vortext itself. The mechanisms of how we model the world match the mechanisms of the world itself, because we are the Being in question. We are a direct and natural outgrowth of the Vortext, in a way that our technology is not. Vortext Consciousness is our Vortext receptor. It can remember and associate sensations Now with meaningful events in the past. The content of those events will be what the Awareness of the Vortext consciousness is focused on.

As the Text Consciousness sees narratives through the lens of discourse, Vortext Consciousness sees Scenarios through a lens of empathy. The discourse orients us in the relations between characters of the Text narrative. This meaning is relative to the world model. Vortext Empathy is the energetic induction of care from an inner recognition of the observer Being, and the observed Being. The underlying means of information transfer, what comes down to photons, is another sort of lens. The meaning of the scenario is about all the other Beings involved. Other humans would have been particularly meaningful of course, but everything maintains its Beingness. Animals, plants and planets could be understood through an empathy as well. Knowing the feelings within the practical details and distinctions of nature.

Text consciousness is possible because Vortext consciousness created sufficient complexity to support the sophisticated indirect relationships between objects of the senses, and objects which can be intuited from indications from reading Vortext carefully. Hunters must first see traces of an animal in the tracks, in nests, in droppings. Everything is meaningful, though they are likely not reduced to mere words. It was the way paleolithic people used their minds that laid the groundwork for Text consciousness.

In Vortext consciousness, even if there are rudimentary parts of one’s insights into the world that are communicated to others, the majority of the model of the world is built from personal experience, and personal intuition. Consciousness for the Paleolithic scientist was a Within the personal intuition, Vortext, being defined as broadly as it is, has a paradoxically simple structure. The paleolithic scientist was surely aware of relations between beings in Vortext in a subtle yet pervasive way. Balance is everywhere evident in what is real. Animals, plants, regular movements of day and night, migrations of herds. All things are seeking to maintain balance. Every being lives through an innate embodiment of balance. Balance is a dynamic universal. Vortext is exactly everything which is not text. Vortext is not imaginary. Vortext is real.

Analogies and distinctions between Text Consciousness and Vortext Consciousness

Text Consciousness is the social intelligence which represents your body in the Text Field which is the field of concern through which people communicate with one another regarding mostly the abstract objects seen in the field of Text. Because of its social authority, Text Consciousness often does not acknowledge non text knowledge. If an idea is not expressible in words, it is difficult to retain, if Text Consciousness has no incentive to maintain it.

Text Consciousness is experienced by an individual through specific communications which are rendered meaningful through discourses. Each communication adds to depth of that discourse. The discourse is the relationship between a specific “Other” character, and a “Self” character. There is a self character in all discourses, a distinct self character, with nuances and references that may only be meaningful within that discourse.

Vortext Consciousness is an awareness of the world of connection and flow. Vortext Consciousness is in touch with the moment, Vortext Consciousness remembers and guides the body through the puzzle of survival.

Vortext Consciousness does not require external authority. It does not require other’s input, so its insights do not need to be expressible. The paleolithic scientist did not need detailed information, they needed to be prepared to watch carefully, and act knowing that they knew everything they needed to know. There is nothing missing in Vortext Consciousness. And what is seen is not separated from its surroundings. Vortext is a flow of varying densities and constant changes, but it is still undifferentiated, or at least the act of seeing it does not assume an underlying division between an identified region of specificity and the rest of the Vortext in which it is situated.

Text Consciousness is always missing most of the text that gives it meaning. experience of Text Consciousness is one of a user of someone else’s language. One which we will never know all of, expressing information what we could only have seen a fraction of. The emotional effect this has on the outlook of people living with an identity built of this text consciousness is extreme. The emotional relationship with one’s self which is constantly running narratives comparing the self to all the other selve’s in the world is an alienated one. It is a body looking to be fulfilled, but trying to do so where the foundation of knowing puts the most respected “reality” mostly somewhere else.

Learning Without Information

We are used to thinking about learning things that someone else knows. This is the assumed mode of writing. Person A figures something out, they write it down so everyone can know it. Like a recipe.

There is another way to know something. To discover it. To find it in your time in Vortext consciousness, living in the flow of the real, of the Vortext. It may be something so subtle it is hard to explain in a linear narrative. What I hope to open up for readers of this paper is the possibility that there is much more to your conscious abilities than just the commentary you can easily sum up as text.

There is also a very simple underlying principle which in one way or another every living thing, and even the fundamental forces of nature naturally adhere to. It is the ultimate paradox, and an old Buddhist principle from the Heart Sutra, “Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form”. In terms of Vortext Consciousness, what is not clear from coincidences and synchronicities is informed by looking at the world, and seeing where the balance is. What is the Form? How is it conserving Emptiness? What is Emptiness? How is it making any given form possible?

The world is never a static place, but some cycles are very slow. Indeed, in Vortext, most beings follow “orbits” which figuratively or literally bring them back where they came. People live one place, travel to work, school, shopping, whatever, and return home. Electrons cloud around a nucleus, planets revolve in their orbits. One could say that all beings follow a law of orbits in the field.

Heart Sutra Science

The Text – Vortext Dialectic was an idea for making clear the role and pitfalls of language consciousness on the content of any investigation. It was intended to be an introduction to what I’ve really been interested in, how the world works.

Understanding the insights in the Heart Sutra, even just the simplest statement, “Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form” is contemplation worthy of a lifetime of self-reflection, just for the psychological insights. I found that it could be taken further. It an be made the foundation of a new science. But a new science of books that have answers is not the answer, not what I’m looking for, and what I want to avoid creating. This is about creating tools for individuals to learn to derive their own science.

 

[Originally posted Feb 2013 to humanizer.com, written by Tem Noon]

Posted in Heart Sutra Science, Psychology | Comments Off on Tem Noon’s Guide to Consciousness

When

Now I have little time. Now I have a chance to explain the story so far.

Tag Tem Noon was sitting by himself, with his mostly clean clothes, and drums. It was time to hop to the Evac.

An Evac is an Evacuation. In his galaxy, Tag has moved through a few different planetary residences, and a few resids that weren’t quite planets, nor craft. Occasionally, planets need to be evacuated, from either natural disasters, or some calculated devastation that only People can come up with them. One particular one sticks in the psyche of the many peoples of this Lamish galaxy. It is, the Third Evacuation of Lamen. It’s not easy to sum up the meaning of a historical event of such incredible proportions to someone who doesn’t know the ten thousand years of history leading up to it, but in short, as the Lamish City planet moved into lethal distance of a particular plasma shockwave, Tem Noon Om used the musical techniques of the Recklesh he learned in his youth on the planet South Zaxor, focused through a transport diamond to flash 50,000 human beings across the galaxy to safe flash termination chambers. Those that made the trek to Lamen’s South magnetic pole were the ones saved. This was two million days ago, but in just the last 3000 days or so, humans have been getting together in remote places, and singing songs of joy at the freedom declared. That’s where Tag Tem Noon is heading.

Tag looks around him at the stuff, that has to be packed just so to make it another asteroid hop to load a transport to go a day after that to the Evac. The Evac on H970. For a week it is Phantonia.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on When

Top 14 Lies of Liberals and Conservatives.

 

There are those beliefs that we know we have, Sure. Then there are these beliefs. Foundational beliefs. Warp in the glass we cannot see it was there until we take it away. Beliefs that we don’t know we have. It is these beliefs which I am talking about. They are harder to see because they are encoded into the way we see ourself. When we start to believe words, we contour what we can say about how we feel into not only what it means to be ourself, but what it could possibly mean for anyone, to be a person. These beliefs are hidden, in the split mirror of our psyche. It keeps us from seeing ourselves, and it keeps us from understanding how other people cannot see it. We are the bias in the half-mirror through which we see the world on one side, and ourselves on the other. Liberal or Conservatives share the last three lies, they just disagree on who the “smart” people are, what the “plan” should be, and what “Everything” is.

Let me also say, there are no Pure Liberals, there are no Pure Conservatives. The Typical Liberal is a fabrication of my own imagination. I have gleaned it to be true because I have seen examples of it, I’ve grown up with certain people, and watched them interact, what they each thought was important, together with what it meant to be defending their particular side. They knew who would be proud. I’ve heard people I respect and trust pontificate on this or that, and I understand in my social camp mindset what my friends will think about what I say. I know what the people around me (virtually speaking too) will think about which experts my friends will respect, based on my personal social barometers. I am aware of the social balance of biases. It is in this plasma of polarized opinion, I see the more general pattern, which makes the polarization possible. There must be a middle path which makes these two extremes of delusion quiescent. Stepping back, I see a more general pattern of social posturing, regardless of the dualistic plasma of dual-viewed acts-as-if-belief, which creates the fabric of the world. And both side miss the point, if they don’t understand that gravity is compassion. Surrender to it. The rest is commentary.

As long as we believe words more than we believe our immediate intuition, then the stories they paint of who we think we are and what we think the world is will continuously overturn the human experience of contact with being. Our life’s story is interesting but not relevant to being. The lexical field is the field we see, when we live in a narrative of comments about what we think other people will think. The liberal and the conservative are always in us all, and they are ready to argue to the death. And whether because of fear or compassion, we will always say what we think the people we respect would want to hear. Underneath it all is a human being, who is here for the benefit of all beings. Compassion is not apologizing for being Human first. I am not an agent of my imagination first, because that is what words are, at best. Interesting, but neither necessary nor sufficient for Being.

The ideal of the Liberal is to liberate all. To allow everyone freedom to be, but with a preservation of how we are living now into the foreseeable future.  The ideal of the conservative is recreate a time of clear social simplicity. If not homogeneity, then still an orderly societal cohesion. Both Liberals and Conservatives would looking the other way, if they could, one way or another, in return for a loyalty to traditional and authoritatively documented in writing. The traditions and the compromises, in practice, makes this an exercise in my personal fiction.  These are just cartoon characters in my mind. From where I’m standing, these look like the quarks of the political process. Underlying foundational pillars of the liberal and conservative mindsets. My intention is to offer a place to step back, and face these deep untruths that must be and can be released through just a moment’s reflection, in a certain way. I am not looking for debate. The biggest problem in the world is not a problem in the world. It is our lens to see the world. We owe to ourselves as humans to, at least ones in a while, polish the person away. You can live that story without believing it, because at best, it got you where you are, with tools to use in your flow of life. The middle path is compassion. We are first here to help each other grow, but it took text language to give us the illusion that everything is not the same being we are.

Text creates the niches for lies, but it cannot do so for truth, because at best text is the second derivative of truth. Whether in words, paper, or pad, the truth is created in the experience of a reader repeating back to themselves the words they recognize on the page.

Top 7 Lies that Liberals promise themselves.

– The Economic, Political and Judicial operations, can be “fixed” to be “fair”.
– Institutions of Government, Business, and Religion can be “fixed”, to be “fair”.
– Privacy was always our “right”, and Privacy can be codified and protected with technology.
– A slow pace to complete the “fix” is acceptable if my personal lifestyle is comfortable enough.
– It is more important to believe in a “plan” for the world than to understand it in detail.
– It is more socially acceptable to believe “smart” people than to understand what they are saying.
– No One can Know “Everything”.

Top 7 Lies that Conservatives promise themselves.

– Everything worked much better fifty years ago. It’s close enough, just tweak it in our favor.
– Without our existing Economic, Political, and Judicial institutions, Society would fall apart.
– Privacy is unnecessary, because whoever is listening will favor those who have shown loyalty.
– Institutions may be corrupt, but they simplify my life and I’m good at working the system.
– It is more important to believe in a “plan” for the world than to understand it in detail.
– It is more socially acceptable to believe “smart” people than to understand what they are saying.
– No One can Know “Everything”.

 

Neon Ying / Yang by Nicholas Noyes for Flickr CC – http://www.flickr.com/photos/niznoz/

 

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Top 14 Lies of Liberals and Conservatives.

Tem Noon – Skyline of the Mind – Tabs & Lyrics


(Intro) F C G Am E

Am
Where were you? Where was I?

C G
Where was the Sun? Where was the Sky?

Am
Where were you? Where are you now?

C G
Have you made it Through the Cloud?

Am
Do you wear it on your face?

C G
Do you fear the Human Race?

Am E
Where were you? Where was I?
Am
Where was the Sky?

----
F C
Do you See the Sky? }

G Am
Or the Skyline of the Mind? } (Chorus 2x)

E
Do you see the Sky? Do you see the Sky? } (1st time)

E ^STOP Am
Do you see the Sky? Do you see the Sky? } (2nd time, leading into verse)
----

Am
For every lie that I believe

C G
There's at least one truth I'll never see

Am
At least one right will never be,

E
For every lie that I believe

Am
For Every Lie that I believe

C G
There's at least one truth I'll never grieve

Am E
My world and self are Ill Conceived if even one lie I

Am E Am E
Believe - Believe - Believe - Believe.

(Chorus 1X)

F C
Do you See the Sky? }

G Am
Or the Skyline of the Mind? } (Chorus 1x)

E
Do you see the Sky? Do you see the Sky? }

Am
Was it Me or was it you

C G
Stopped looking up for any truth?

Am
The news that crawls across our screen

C G
Does it crawl through every dream

Am
But before despair takes hold

C G
Behold the hope that's many fold

Am
The children's eyes have no Blindfolds

C G^STOP
They will see beyond what they're told

----
F C
Do you See the Sky? }

G Am
Or the Skyline of the Mind? } (Chorus 2x)

E
Do you see the Sky? Do you see the Sky? } (1st time)

E ^STOP Am
Do you see the Sky? Do you see the Sky? } (2nd time)
----

(instrumental / solo)

(Chorus 2X)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Tem Noon – Skyline of the Mind – Tabs & Lyrics

As If a Book

IMG_0486Make your Own Buddha

There’s Nothing Special About the Buddha. The historical Buddha was just a person. The Buddha Nature is inside every being. And everything is a Being. By that I mean, everything which is real is a Buddha. There is nothing which is real which does not contain the Buddha Nature

The Buddha nature is empty. It is a container within which the only substance that fits is emptiness. It is nothing special, because it is all there is. Emptiness, which cannot be combined, divided, multiplied or removed. All of these operations cannot change or preserve the nature of Emptiness. This is the Buddha Nature. This is not special, it is all there is.

Yet, from time to time, we have questions for a character. A character we can talk to. A character who can speak in written language. A character who says specific things. A character who knows the specifics of our lives. I know what the Buddha would say, if I consider it. I make up the things he says, I make up the facts about this character.

This character is semi-fictitious. Anything written is really semi-fictitious. To create fiction, some of what you consider real inevitably creeps in. To tell absolute truth, it is inevitable that you need to make up events, circumstances, sometimes words even. Sometimes names. Anything written is semi-fiction. First, give your inner Buddha a name.

A Blank Page

On the blank page is every possible page of text. They are already there. In the white blankness. In that sense, I’ve worked all my life to get back to the blank sheet. The blank slate. So long covered in dark letters, with every curve blotting out possibilities of what could be there. How dense could a page of text get? How rich a life can I now draw, write onto my palimsest?

The Rule of Tools

For every tool you gain you lose a skill. You could also think of it as a hidden cost to the skill. Clearly if the tool is significant enough to be used, it will change actions and habits.

About 13 thousand years ago, homo sapiens changed from a pre-literate conscious experience, to talking and therefore thinking (creating written language narratives in preparation for anticipated social conversations) in a written language. The question is, what did we lose when we started to think in a written language?

Heart Sutra Science is above all about a personal science. A canon-less science. A postulate-free science. A Paleolithic science, not dependent on any intellect. No words.

This is the science of immediacy. I seeing, is conjoined to meaning. The simplicity, the purity, the intuitiveness of EVEN THE MOST MODERN of physics extremes is obscured by our representation, and comes out more when we can reach the intuitive unworded acceptance of how the world is, without and within.

A Calculus of Consciousness

Everything we are is experienced as a conscious moment. All of our experience of the world takes place in conscious moments. This is a calculus of consciousness. It is a method to observe, record, and measure the operations of consciousness in phenomenological precision, on a horizon of time and sense impressions.

The calculus is consciousness of the calculus of consciousness. What I mean by that is that I am not talking about a symbolic or textual description of a calculus, or even a description of such a system of consciousness. This is how I describe experiencing my moments. These words CANNOT be how you describe experiencing your moments. It’s not that our underlying experience of being doesn’t spring from the same infinite emptiness (or whatever you want to call it). It is that the ground for your calculus of consciousness, your underlying belief in how your mind operates needs to be grounded on what makes words possible in your own internal universe.

Karma and the Conservation of Emptiness

Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form

Therefore, the only thing real is Emptiness, and everything else just looks like stuff.

Emptiness is of a twofold nature.

Emptiness as a Noun -> The Emptiness of Space (exhibiting Charge and Electromagnetism)

Emptiness as a Verb -> The Emptying of Time (exhibiting Mass and Gravity)

It is the balance between these two poles of Emptiness that anything and everything exists.

This is the conservation of emptiness in action. It is in action in the world, and in the beings within the world. In fact, the beings in the world, and the world with beings are two sides of the same coin.

Karma is the law of cause and effect. It is another way of saying the Conservation of Emptiness.

All consciousnesses exist in a field of karma. The form of that karma varies with the nature of the consciousnesses, and their rate and form of interaction with their peers.

Beings and world need to be understood under erasure. That is, they are ultimately empty in any absolute way, but they exhibit properties during phases of existence which fulfill a balanced symmetry.

Metaphysics Under Erasure

Metaphysics is used in many loose ways. I want to be very clear and specific about what I’m talking about. Metaphysics is the philosophical underpinnings that make any theory of physics possible. Working our way through what that means exactly gives us a clear foundation on which we can look at how physics works. Physics involves mental models which predict behavior of observables, based on experience, including the use of tools. Physics will also be 1st, 2nd, 3rd hand account and more. Metaphysics gives an individual tools to allow physical understanding, contemplating, and utilizing of physics.

“Under Erasure” calls attention to the inherent emptiness of all. Physics, metaphysics, the content of consciousness at all levels, including the consciousness of consciousness. It is all in a state of many levels of emptiness balancing. Together, from the perspective of a creature with a composite consciousness, it looks like stuff. Every person has a Metaphysics. A personal one. This is the mental object, which is NOT an intellectual narrative, but a personal consciousness of what the world is. It is geometric, in that we have a sense of ourself in a physical space, with an awareness distance. The Nowness of our senses, our orientation and location in space is our mind’s access to what it means to exist, right now. It is that sense, the preliterate, pre-reflexive physical sense of the presence of the world. That is the Metaphysics I am talking about. It is that sense that makes Physics, and all science, possible. This is Science as a Verb

Narrative Has No Truth Value

Rather than a belief, this is a reasoned observation based on the essential nature of narrative, and of truth.

The essential nature of narrative is a series of sentences which must be repeated by a reader in their mind, as they read and understand them. This is true if reading or hearing speech. The reader, in a necessarily personal way, parses the series of words and punctuations into it’s emotional relevance and effect on their world. The reader also generally responds to the words. An answering narrative which may be stated in speech as in a conversation, or it may be just an internal response.

A calculus of consciousness would be where narrative events of reading and writing mark a person’s conscious experience of their day. The structure of narrative is discourse. Each narrative is presented to a specific reader in the context of all previous relevant narratives. The mind of the reader correlates relevant previous narratives through an understanding of where the narrative came from, who spoke or wrote, who one is communicating with. In this way, words are not simply meaningful by some definition. They necessarily have meaning specific to the person, persons, or general category we attribute the narrative to. This all means that to understand human consciousness and how words have meaning to consciousness one must understand the way that consciousness is experienced.

So, what do I mean by “Truth Value”? What we typically mean by “Truth” is that words are “Correct”. If I said, “There is a stop sign on my corner,” this is a statement which can be measured against some objective “Fact”. But is the fact in the narrative itself, meaning the series of words which were communicated? I say no, the truth value in any narrative is in the meaningful understanding which is evoked from the narrative linked to the understood discourse within the conscious mind of a specific reader. In a way, it is a convenient shorthand to say the words “mean” what they will be understood to mean by most readers. However, it suggests a dangerous misconception which leads to a belief in a purely abstract and ideal “Truth”.

If narrative could have truth value, then at most it would be a relative truth. Truth in the context of one narrative commenting on another, limited by the discourses the readers and writers are using to frame the context of the narratives.

A judgement of true or not can be based on direct observation with the physical world, but it can also require a judgement of weighing other narratives to determine some truth. In the weighing of relative truth of narratives, other discourses may imply belief one way or another.

We Know the world “As If”

We come to know ourselves, the idea of our body with a name and a lifelong relationship with The World. The World is the set of stories which constitute the horizon, the social and cultural horizon against which each sentence of narrative which we encounter, as well as our own identity, is understood. Self and world are encountered and constructed together, two sides of the same coin of experience.

We exist in the world of stories without necessarily understanding its necessary structures, but rather being immersed in and subject to those structures. Further, beyond the foundations which makes a world of stories and identity possible, there are specific stories which each person comes to in a unique order, in a unique way. In this way when seeing the process from outside we can see that no two individuals will have identical world horizons against which they view themselves, even as there are many overall similarities which could be treated by individuals as being the same world, by definition. This does not actually make it so, but in fact builds into the system imbalances which injure the ability of observations from within the horizon of or recognizing that there are other ways to be in the world.

I’m always looking for new places to begin. Everyone who can understand my basic words could follow my reasoning, I like to think, and would come to similar conclusions about the nature of the world, and the nature of themselves.

What I have to offer

It isn’t really for me to say, what I have to offer. It doesn’t matter what I feel I have to offer. What I think I have to offer. What stands a chance of being remembered, at least for a little while, is what is actually taken. It may even be things I say, things I do, that I don’t even know are being offered. It’s not for me to say.

Before we started to think in a written language. This is all that matters. Because all of the things we are mistaken about would become obvious if we understood them with the consciousness which makes text consciousness possible. That is the consciousness which has become the unconscious mind, in a sea of limiting, confusing, and ultimately fabricated stories.

But if anyone believes me, then they are not receiving what I have to offer. I am not imparting knowledge which can be believed. I am expressing my process of learning. I am offering my science, as a verb. As a process. As an adventure.

Narrative Trace and Meaningful Text

A Narrative is a linear set of words. When the words are on paper, in a computer, or even spoken, then the trace of the words embodies the narrative. In order for the narrative to be meaningful, in the sense that there is someone who now associates the traces of that narrative with a meaning in their intellectual facility, then a the narrative must be read. In their mind as the words are recognized and repeated by the intellect, they are understood and induce a non-textual emotional relevance to the reader. The meaning of the read narrative is seen through the lens of the appropriate discourse, and the text is thus “understood”.

So the text is not the pigment or the paper. It is not the bits on the computer. It is not the sounds of the voice. The text only exists with a specific meaning within a single person’s mind. The importance of this cannot be overstated. The words themselves have no set or specific abstract meaning. If they seem to, then you are mistaking a narrative trace for meaningful text. Text exists only in the imagination of the reader.

Writing is an inverse process, but it is again a mental exercise that results in traces being produced. The process is the result of a matching non-textual, emotional posture towards the current state of a specific discourse with the emotional will to change that discourse, in whatever way the writer’s mind feels is appropriate. The production of text is a necessary stage, and that which the intellect accomplishes, and then passes the text to the body in the appropriate way of making the trace (through a pen, a keyboard, chalkboard, voice, or however the words are to be expressed).

In short, even when people read the same words, the discourse through which they understand it will always be distinct, because discourses are personal psychological structures. So the meaning of those words are always understood in the context of a specific person. Narratives are routinely understood to mean the same thing to many or even all people, because readers are often using their internal understanding of what “all” people would understand. It is still a personal discourse including a character which an individual is envisioning as how “all people” would understand those words. This doesn’t change the fact the fact that the meaningful text and any emotional state it evokes is completely and inevitably personal to a specific reader.

Discourse

Discourse is the lens through which narratives are understood. Each Text instance which is repeated in the intellectual conscious mind ripples from the words into the meaning through the gate of discourse. What I mean by discourse is a conversation (one-time or ongoing) between a specific subject, and subject characters that a person understands they are interacting with, over a lifetime.

“Subject Character” is a notion I find myself forced to create to specifically situate the poles of a discourse. If the basic model of a discourse is a person’s conversation with some other, then the context of the current communication is the discourse embodied by the person’s memory of the past communications with that same other. To look closer at what the communication consists of, let’s separate the reading (and hearing) from the writing (and speaking). First, at the beginning of the communication, the “subject character” of the other will be identified, which underlies the discourse which is implicitly presenting the meaning of the communication to the understanding of the person.

To tease this apart further, the discourse consists not just of an intellectual model of this particular other person (or group of people, or some general category of many or all people in general) but also of the implicit relationship of the self of that person to the other end of the discourse. The idea of themselves which they live by (whether they are explicitly aware of this or not) is contained in each discourse, as well as having a relation to some internal discourse, where this idea of themselves is creating and reading comments from itself, to itself as a means (if a misleading one) to consciously converse with themselves.

Writing (and speaking) bring the discourse consciousness to mind as they choose an other subject character to address, and a subject matter which the person’s own subject consciousness feels needs to be brought up with the audience. These two things come together. We think of something we want to say conjoined with thinking of who we want to say it to, along with the means we have to say it.

What I mean is, before telephones existed, I would not think of calling someone to ask if they were busy that evening for dinner. I would rather, with a similar thought, walk to their house and ask them in person. Today, I may think of a FaceBook status I want to post, and would pick one which would be appropriate, maybe funny, maybe enlightening, to many different friends and acquaintances of mine on FaceBook, representing a huge number of distinct yet related ongoing discourses.

To back up a little bit, and seeing a language consciousness swimming in a sea of discourses, each of which is changed by each communication related to the discourse, and further discourses which you didn’t think were going to receive a specific communication may get it anyway. (for example, I may be keeping something secret from some people, so my discourse with them includes knowing that they di not know something which I do. If I later find out that they did know that thing, I would have to re-evaluate all of the communication I remembered, and reassess the discourse retroactively to where I think I knew what they knew.

In this way, the discourse becomes the way in which the mind makes models of the world. At least the social world. The intellect grows into understanding language through an unfolding process of self-awareness, seen through layers of discourse between the discursive self and the specific and generalized others.

Heart Sutra Science – The Essentials

1) You are the Being in Question.

2) You cannot be other than the Being in Question.

3) Experience is the enfolding Dynamic of Being and Field.

4) Being is Now, a three phase Pulse of Recognizing (The Field), Thinking (What it Means), and Acting (In the Field). Three phases of Now.

5) Each Being is a Coordinate System/Frame of Reference/Lorentz Invariant Spacetime Universe

6) It is balanced by an Beinglessness (as if a “complex conjugate”) every moment.

7) A Being is a balanced bubble, on the edge of infinite distance on the outside, and a vacuum emptying force on the inside.

Text as Fundamental a Leap as DNA

It could be the conspiracy is not aliens, inter-dimensional beings, cabals of super-rich old white men …. but simply text that has taken over people’s sense of being human. Rather than confidence in their biological birthright, people have become agents of text the way proteins are agents of DNA. We believe in taking vacations all over the world, and so support a fleet of planes. We believe in traveling dozens to hundreds of miles a day in cars, and so support a car culture. We believe in News, be believe in an entertainment industry, giving a nervous system to a text system with no consciousness. No conscience. No thoughts, but people who do the bidding of what they’re supposed to do without seeing through the consequence of the actions, because the stories say that is how it is SUPPOSED to be.

We act AS IF money has value, AS IF the government needs to control people’s actions, AS IF famous people are models to live by, in spite of each of us knowing better. If we stopped believing in stories and started acting as if we were biological FIRST, and used stories in SERVICE of all living beings, then no conspiracy of aliens, demons, or misers could hurt us. Belief in ANY text, even this one, is complicity in our own insanity. We must regain our birthright of consciousness individually first, then with compassion for all the humans who have lost their way through the delusions that have been written into their behaviors.

Emptiness and the Structure of Being

Existence implies Being and Field.

Being implies Extension in Space, This physicality indicates a “Noun”.

Being implies Duration in Time, an activity which indicates a “Verb”.

Being and Field are not literally separate. They are metaphorically distinct.

The specifics of the boundary between Being and Field vary depending on the level of Being. The general features of Being and Field still hold, with lower levels made up of smaller systems of Being and Fields, and larger systems being made up of larger Being and Fields.

There is no field without a Being, there is no Being without a field. The being is the observer of the field. YOU are always this observer.

There is What you are Looking At

and What you are Looking Through.

Every sentence begins with emptiness, and ends in emptying. In between, it seems like stuff.

Our model of the universe operates one moment at a time.

Our Being is a model of the universe

The universe is a model of our Being

Principles for Clarity

Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form [The “Golden Mean” of the universe. Conservation of Emptiness. The only thing that is real is Emptiness, and Boxes of Emptiness. Everything else just looks like stuff]

Emptiness has a Two-Fold Nature, Noun and Verb [It is one Emptiness, but human intellectual conventions mean Emptiness must be explicitly understood from two syntactic postures. Emptiness as a noun, as a Space with no objects. And Emptiness as a Verb, as a force removing any and all objects as well as the space which an object could have been contained and removing it to non-existence. Such is the ultimate force of The Emptying. The Emptying is the differential between anything and absolute not-even-space-and-time]

The Paleolithic Scientist did not expect their model of the world around them could be built of stories. They felt what they knew of the world in their shared vibrations. Shared music pulsing through everything in the world.

The Paleolithic Scientist never knew there was any other way to be, other than a “Mindfulness” Scientist, watching everything and feeling what it means. Seeing themselves in the place of animals, plants, forces of nature. Not a story of themselves, but their real visceral connection through their body into the physicality around them.

Tools Always Have Side Effects.

For Every Tool you gain, you lose a skill. [Your facilities change to those using the tool]

What did we lose when we started thinking in a written language?

This happened to our culture some few thousand years ago, it also happens to each person in the course of a day.

Experience exists only within specific individuals.

Controlling behavior rather than support consciousness is giving up humanity in favor of being an agent of a text.

Consciousness wants to join with other consciousnesses, through frequency induction. [ We naturally become in synch, and this is a good thing. It’s what our nervous systems are meant for. Synching up with each other is that musical understanding, that can be expressed with all the senses. ]

There is Nothing to Worry About

There is nothing to worry about, at the most fundamental level. Not really. I am a limitless being, projected through a body. This body allows me to touch other beings like myself, and allows me to act in this world. Anything, everything touchable is like me, a type of body. I am not limited by this body. Rather, the awareness which is the sum of all the awareness in the physicality of this body is a projection of my limitless being through the amusements of a body.

The death of the body does not kill the awareness, because the birth of the body did not create Awareness. The awareness is there, the delicate structures of our body amplifies and focuses the awareness of all the cells in our body into a unified unit, a Human Being. When the body dies, that unity in a being is gone, but the resonance with primitive awareness remains, and is not different than the Infinite Inside which cannot be divided or duplicated. It is always entirely the same one, even though there is one at the center of every Being. It is the ultimate conserver of Emptiness. It is The Entier, doing the Emptying.

AND IT IS OUR AWARENESS. It can’t die, it is never born, it is the essence of everything. It is one with the furthest light we could ever see, yet it is us.

My contribution is Foundation.

Foundation of Consciousness, Foundation of Science, Foundation of Spirit. There has to be something underlying everything else that you know that connects the knowing to the being. Yet Knowing is a promise to the body that a State of Being (Verb) exists in it’s Representation as a Being (Noun).

That is a way of stating the fundamental flaw in text consciousness. This is a way of stating the fundamental principle which drives what we flatteringly refer to as “Existence”, yet which is completely constructed from Emptiness.

All forms exist so as to facilitate resonance through similitude, and the ultimate connecting principle is that all there is is Emptiness and Boxes of Emptiness. All movements are mirrored with anti-movements, so all that is left is the record of every wiggle and anti-wiggle on every other point in the universe.

You are the Root of Meaning

You are the Root of Now

You are the Root of Meaning

You are the Root of Being

You are the Awareness being Rooted

You are the Root that makes Awareness Possible

You are the immediacy of Now

You are the infinitesimal awareness building the calculus of Consciousness

This book is about foundations. All my life I have searched for answers, rather than take someone’s word for something. As a child I noticed older people around me had stopped asking foundational questions.

I already knew about astronomy, about mechanics, about electricity. And I saw the spots within the theories which were still to be filled in. Each new discovery I learned about held within it a question. What was the deeper Truth which makes that possible?

I pay attention to what other people say about this or that. I unravel them as metaphors which I compare to my internal model of the world, and perhaps think of something to say, about why it is a little right, and a little wrong. This book is NOT about giving you a model of the universe which you should remember and explain when asked on your next “quiz” on the subject. This book is about discovering the science of your universe. There is a sense of the world which is immediate, which is not part of a narrative. You are the root of your meaning. You, as a human being, do not require meaning from the outside, you are the source of meaning, for everything which you will ever see and do.

This book is an exploration into the structural underpinnings of meaning (Epistemology), the personal relationship between meaning and the physical world (Metaphysics), and the precise measurement and control of the physical world (Physics).

I am only setting forth a personal phenomenology, a wanderer’s notebook, a journal of moments of inspiration and desperation. I have no information, in the traditional sense, to convey. Yet, through the stream of narrative I am producing, I hope to induce a certain resonance with my readers. I am taking the best field notes I can, you will have to mark the trail in your own way.

These are not abstract facts. There is in fact nothing “True” that can be written, yet there is “Truth” which can be read. This paradox is because the experience of the reader is not limited by the imagination of the writer. The reader does not receive thoughts from the writer, the reader is reminded of their life, and what they know of the writer, or the context which they are reading it in. In that moment, seeing a sentence is the reader imagining what that sentence would mean to them, in the context which they had just pictured, the picture inferred from the sentence. The reader is where any Truth is generated, as they are reading. And it is at best true only in the wordless operation which that idea performed on their internal model of the world.

So this book is at once showing my personal path to creating a satisfactory science based not on complex ideas of professional scientists, but rather a single paradoxical insight which is the only postulate my science allows: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. From this, all conservation laws, and all structure arises, and decays back to the primordial emptiness.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on As If a Book

You Are the Root of Meaning – YATROM Edit A

After writing things down, I am carving away at the stone of narratives, to find the useful gems of infectious insight. The previous post was a link to all pages I’ve generated, in three broad categories which embody this work. This post is only the greatest hits.

 

Text – Vortext

Text Vortext - 030

Text Vortext - 014 Text Vortext - 015 Text Vortext - 016 Text Vortext - 017 Text Vortext - 018 Text Vortext - 019 Text Vortext - 020 Text Vortext - 021 Text Vortext - 022

Text Vortext - 025

Text Vortext - 012Text Vortext - 013

Text Vortext - 011

Text Vortext - 010

Text Vortext - 008

Text Vortext - 095

Text Vortext - 093

 

 

Text Vortext - 089

Text Vortext - 006

Text Vortext - 002

Text Vortext - 101 Text Vortext - 100 Text Vortext - 099

Text Vortext - 103

Text Vortext - 036

Text Vortext - 033Text Vortext - 038 Text Vortext - 048Text Vortext - 039 Text Vortext - 040

 

 

Heart Sutra Science

 

Heart Sutra Science - 134

Heart Sutra Science - 127

Heart Sutra Science - 083

Heart Sutra Science - 052 Heart Sutra Science - 053 Heart Sutra Science - 054 Heart Sutra Science - 055 Heart Sutra Science - 056 Heart Sutra Science - 057Heart Sutra Science - 059

Heart Sutra Science - 060 Heart Sutra Science - 061 Heart Sutra Science - 062 Heart Sutra Science - 063 Heart Sutra Science - 064 Heart Sutra Science - 065 Heart Sutra Science - 066 Heart Sutra Science - 067

Heart Sutra Science - 098 Heart Sutra Science - 099 Heart Sutra Science - 100 Heart Sutra Science - 101 Heart Sutra Science - 102 Heart Sutra Science - 103Heart Sutra Science - 109

Heart Sutra Science - 113

Heart Sutra Science - 143

Heart Sutra Science - 128

Heart Sutra Science - 113 Heart Sutra Science - 114 Heart Sutra Science - 116Heart Sutra Science - 121

 

Ironic Affirmations

 

 

Ironic Affirmations - 165Ironic Affirmations - 163 Ironic Affirmations - 162Ironic Affirmations - 156Ironic Affirmations - 152Ironic Affirmations - 142Ironic Affirmations - 137 Ironic Affirmations - 136Ironic Affirmations - 126Ironic Affirmations - 117Ironic Affirmations - 105Ironic Affirmations - 101Ironic Affirmations - 099Ironic Affirmations - 097Ironic Affirmations - 095Ironic Affirmations - 092Ironic Affirmations - 089 Ironic Affirmations - 088 Ironic Affirmations - 087Ironic Affirmations - 076Ironic Affirmations - 062Ironic Affirmations - 060 Ironic Affirmations - 059Ironic Affirmations - 025Ironic Affirmations - 023 Ironic Affirmations - 022Ironic Affirmations - 020Ironic Affirmations - 015Ironic Affirmations - 012Ironic Affirmations - 008Ironic Affirmations - 003

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on You Are the Root of Meaning – YATROM Edit A

Ironic Affirmations: 97-171

Ironic Affirmations - 097 Ironic Affirmations - 098 Ironic Affirmations - 099 Ironic Affirmations - 100 Ironic Affirmations - 101 Ironic Affirmations - 102 Ironic Affirmations - 103 Ironic Affirmations - 104 Ironic Affirmations - 105 Ironic Affirmations - 106 Ironic Affirmations - 107 Ironic Affirmations - 108 Ironic Affirmations - 109 Ironic Affirmations - 110 Ironic Affirmations - 111 Ironic Affirmations - 112 Ironic Affirmations - 113 Ironic Affirmations - 114 Ironic Affirmations - 115 Ironic Affirmations - 116 Ironic Affirmations - 117 Ironic Affirmations - 118 Ironic Affirmations - 119 Ironic Affirmations - 120 Ironic Affirmations - 121 Ironic Affirmations - 122 Ironic Affirmations - 123 Ironic Affirmations - 124 Ironic Affirmations - 125 Ironic Affirmations - 126 Ironic Affirmations - 127 Ironic Affirmations - 128 Ironic Affirmations - 129 Ironic Affirmations - 130 Ironic Affirmations - 131 Ironic Affirmations - 132 Ironic Affirmations - 133 Ironic Affirmations - 134 Ironic Affirmations - 135 Ironic Affirmations - 136 Ironic Affirmations - 137 Ironic Affirmations - 138 Ironic Affirmations - 139 Ironic Affirmations - 140 Ironic Affirmations - 141 Ironic Affirmations - 142 Ironic Affirmations - 143 Ironic Affirmations - 144 Ironic Affirmations - 145 Ironic Affirmations - 146 Ironic Affirmations - 147 Ironic Affirmations - 148 Ironic Affirmations - 149 Ironic Affirmations - 150 Ironic Affirmations - 151 Ironic Affirmations - 152 Ironic Affirmations - 153 Ironic Affirmations - 154 Ironic Affirmations - 155 Ironic Affirmations - 156 Ironic Affirmations - 157 Ironic Affirmations - 158 Ironic Affirmations - 159 Ironic Affirmations - 160 Ironic Affirmations - 161 Ironic Affirmations - 162 Ironic Affirmations - 163 Ironic Affirmations - 164 Ironic Affirmations - 165 Ironic Affirmations - 166 Ironic Affirmations - 167 Ironic Affirmations - 168 Ironic Affirmations - 169 Ironic Affirmations - 170 Ironic Affirmations - 171

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Ironic Affirmations: 97-171

Ironic Affirmations: 65-96

Ironic Affirmations - 065 Ironic Affirmations - 066 Ironic Affirmations - 067 Ironic Affirmations - 068 Ironic Affirmations - 069 Ironic Affirmations - 070 Ironic Affirmations - 071 Ironic Affirmations - 072 Ironic Affirmations - 073 Ironic Affirmations - 074 Ironic Affirmations - 075 Ironic Affirmations - 076 Ironic Affirmations - 077 Ironic Affirmations - 078 Ironic Affirmations - 079 Ironic Affirmations - 080 Ironic Affirmations - 081 Ironic Affirmations - 082 Ironic Affirmations - 083 Ironic Affirmations - 084 Ironic Affirmations - 085 Ironic Affirmations - 086 Ironic Affirmations - 087 Ironic Affirmations - 088 Ironic Affirmations - 089 Ironic Affirmations - 090 Ironic Affirmations - 091 Ironic Affirmations - 092 Ironic Affirmations - 093 Ironic Affirmations - 094 Ironic Affirmations - 095 Ironic Affirmations - 096

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Ironic Affirmations: 65-96

Ironic Affirmations: 33-64

Ironic Affirmations - 033 Ironic Affirmations - 034 Ironic Affirmations - 035 Ironic Affirmations - 036 Ironic Affirmations - 037 Ironic Affirmations - 038 Ironic Affirmations - 039 Ironic Affirmations - 040 Ironic Affirmations - 041 Ironic Affirmations - 042 Ironic Affirmations - 043 Ironic Affirmations - 044 Ironic Affirmations - 045 Ironic Affirmations - 046 Ironic Affirmations - 047 Ironic Affirmations - 048 Ironic Affirmations - 049 Ironic Affirmations - 050 Ironic Affirmations - 051 Ironic Affirmations - 052 Ironic Affirmations - 053 Ironic Affirmations - 054 Ironic Affirmations - 055 Ironic Affirmations - 056 Ironic Affirmations - 057 Ironic Affirmations - 058 Ironic Affirmations - 059 Ironic Affirmations - 060 Ironic Affirmations - 061 Ironic Affirmations - 062 Ironic Affirmations - 063 Ironic Affirmations - 064 Ironic Affirmations - 065

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Ironic Affirmations: 33-64

Ironic Affirmations: 1-32

Ironic Affirmations - 001 Ironic Affirmations - 002 Ironic Affirmations - 003 Ironic Affirmations - 004 Ironic Affirmations - 005 Ironic Affirmations - 006 Ironic Affirmations - 007 Ironic Affirmations - 008 Ironic Affirmations - 009 Ironic Affirmations - 010 Ironic Affirmations - 011 Ironic Affirmations - 012 Ironic Affirmations - 013 Ironic Affirmations - 014 Ironic Affirmations - 015 Ironic Affirmations - 016 Ironic Affirmations - 017 Ironic Affirmations - 018 Ironic Affirmations - 019 Ironic Affirmations - 020 Ironic Affirmations - 021 Ironic Affirmations - 022 Ironic Affirmations - 023 Ironic Affirmations - 024 Ironic Affirmations - 025 Ironic Affirmations - 026 Ironic Affirmations - 027 Ironic Affirmations - 028 Ironic Affirmations - 029 Ironic Affirmations - 030 Ironic Affirmations - 031 Ironic Affirmations - 032

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Ironic Affirmations: 1-32