<h1>Micro Seizures and Missed Apprehensions</h1>
[[bits and pieces|contents]] from something i’ll never finish – as such, this may not make any [[sense.|Patterns]]
Patterns emerge from the act, in the spontaneous deformations of collision captured or not[[.|Beauty]]
“Beauty is the realization of a truth you can only explain with lies[[.|Aesthetic Automatism]]”
(ca. 1995 -- Barrett Erickson, Wm. Dubin, Celine Myers)
The forceful creative dynamic life stabs into unknown potential, slashing revelations at each backward glance. We know only by exploring what we cannot know. We know only to the degree we abandon the search for knowledge and adopt a passion for experiment.
We discover our "SELF" in the intuitive act of reaching spontaneously for what attracts us. Action is judgement; we must judge. An AESTHETIC inevitably forms, freely and beautifully if unimpeded, or warped and deformed if artificially restricted -- but it will form whether welcomed or not.
A true, personal AESTHETIC is a dynamic, continuously evolving concept of "SELF"in the active pursuit
[The full tract and additional materials can be found [[here]].]
A moment of dialog, (mis?)remembered from a movie, or maybe a book:
[[“You know those moments, when it all comes together in a flash and it all makes perfect sense and then just as quickly, it’s all gone? Just a brief flash of [[total coherence|Epiphany]]? That’s [[epilepsy]].”
A general term for a sudden disturbance of cerebral function accompanied by loss of consciousness, with or without convulsion.
[Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary]
The sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something.
Another quote, ever-present, which can be attributed more certainly to Heisenberg:
“What we learn about is not nature itself, but nature as exposed to [[our methods of questioning|The Fundamental Error]].”
[[The fundamental error|What we learn about]] in the current scientific paradigm is what Goswami [who, I hasten to add, has his own problems of interpretation far beyond the scope of this investigation] describes as “Materialist Science”:
We have learned well the basic axiom that everything is matter, with deterministic “upward causation”. We’ve come to believe that “reality” is somehow different from us, that we can observe it, measure it, judge our perceptions by how much they differ from it. “Reality” is elsewhere, somehow more real than our experience, so the imagination is deployed on a perverted mission of rationalization.
We assume appearance is deceptive, so we try to understand “reality” by separating ourselves from it. We become double blind when our experiments remove experience from these investigations. We look deeper and deeper, smaller and smaller, to divide and separate appearance from its deception, but each new “discovery” simply moves the horizon of understanding, even as it remains both infinitely close and infinitely distant.
Yet we persist, thinking we will eventually arrive at the fundamental truth of our existence, once we understand what “reality” is without our interference.
Mainstream science has been driven madly off course, as ever more bizarre theories are invented, to explain the obvious, in service of this dehumanization.
Mathematicians had their way, while scientists forgot to question the premises on which the calculations were based. They came to believe Schrödinger's cat was both alive and dead until we took it’s pulse.
The extrapolated calculations made it seem rational to accept that all possible states of a process/system are equally and simultaneously real, and the point where some decision/observation “determines” one state rather than another, for that particular moment/space, only means that all the other possible states carry on in another dimension, as a different “universe’ exactly like ours up to that point, but diverging from there according to the results of all the other outcomes.
The reason this has all become so bizarre and byzantine is that they are looking thru the wrong end of the scope (whether micro or tele) even as they forget that they are looking through a scope at all.
That point of transformation, from Latent to Experienced. The event threshold of our existence.
The problem is that what we are really confronting and trying to understand is that very moment of cognitive singularity when latent reality is transformed into reality-as-experienced. So we are always splitting distances from what is known to what is pre-known, approaching a horizon that is always infinitely removed from where we are, from what we can actually experience, because all the possible dimensions of latent reality don’t carry on, or split off into parallel realities, they collapse into _one_ reality-as-experienced for each of us.
It’s a Fourier transformation of sorts, the phase front is met by the reference beam and the holograph appears, the latent quanta are reified into the obscure objects of our attention.
In a sense, this is indeed a “Many Worlds” outcome, but these worlds are personal, not objective. It’s not that “now” is constantly splitting off into every possible reality; it’s that every possible reality is constantly collapsing into one “now” for each of us.
The reason the theories of the current paradigm stop making sense at this singularity is because we’ve constructed them to make sense “objectively”, but our reason is embedded and embodied and therefore not objective.
The imagination sees more. It reveals the patterns of our interactions with all that we see as other. It constructs the poetic dimension, on which entangled metaphors develop and play. It is from this that the real truth of our existence emerges.
That truth is non-local, multidimensional.
It makes sense of what lies beyond our experiential reality, beyond our psycho-mechanical limitations, both the infinitely small and the infinitely large.
It is a poetic apprehension of a beauty “that shakes you from the inside out, something you have no control over, something reflexive and brutal and shattering.” (from “Aesthetic Automatism”).
The perception of difference is a primitive evolutionary state.
When primitive sensory-motor process – active and reactive sensory explorations (what we’ve come to identify as our 5 senses) without guidance or purpose – becomes self-aware, it also becomes other-aware. But there is no separation between the sensory-motor explorations and the context that they explore.
This self-awareness is a meta-sense. It is an awareness of the more primitive sensory-motor activity.
The difference we experience – what Sartre labeled the “nothingness” at the core of human existance -- is actually that cognitive difference between the immediate and the meta. It is, apparently, our unique evolutionary burden.
The imagination emerges from this as an evolution of self-awareness, a refinement of the meta-sense of difference, and it is the true creator of our reality-as-experienced. It is a sense of the senses in action, combined with a sense of the history of those acts all placed in their larger context.
It is our evolutionary advantage.
Our cognitive processes sculpt our reality-as-experienced from the raw material of latent reality, giving it its specific form in relation to our species specific sensory-motor processes. We are “unique” only to the degree these processes differ from others of our species (color blindness, etc.) and to the degree we use our imaginations to creatively guide our explorations of the potentials of latent reality.
So our investigation of reality needs to begin here.
The error of the current scientific paradigm is that it bases all “reality” materialistically and tries to probe the difference between our reality (-as-experienced) versus what it presumes to be some more real reality which already has form and properties. It assumes a different reality that the one we actually experience.
This is a failure of the imagination.
Is there a beginning? A [["big bang"|Cognitive Singularity]] maybe?
Perhaps there are just a multitude of "end points"^^[[1|begin 1]]^^.
If we are "now", and try to look back in time from here, will we find a "beginning", or just another "end" to our [[process]]?
In an episode of "RAKE":
"This is how the world ends -- not with a whimper but a diminished vocal response capability."
And it //is <strong>process</strong>// after all.
[[The Fundamental Error]]
[[The Individual and the Imagination]]
[[The Aesthetic Automatism pages.]]
( currently backed up at: file:///C:/OldForSave%20C/MAGNETICFIELDS.ORG.BAK4mar09/sky/aarc/aav20.html )