A Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of the Eight Circuit Model
One day a few years ago it dawned on me that the wavefunction of quantum mechanics can be considered as a "mandala," if you will, representing the top two echelons of the Eight Circuit Model: the seventh "metaprogramming" circuit and the eighth "nonlocal" circuit. This will be seen to validate Robert Anton Wilson's amendment of the original theory whereby he transposed the sixth and seventh circuits, elevating the metaprogramming circuit's position in the scheme. I am not aware of his reasons for this change, and the following may have been a subconscious or possibly even conscious motivation for him.
Basically, metaprogramming awareness can be visualized in the wavefunction as an inward compression of the x-axis, which represents spacetime values, toward the y-axis, which represents the probability or finding a given object with an array of particular characteristics at a particular spacetime value. Once the compression is complete and all the values of x have been squeezed in and lie on the y-axis, every state or possibility under consideration of the object's function has a 100% probability of occuring -- simultaneously. This can be considered as an abstract definition of the type of consciousness dubbed by Lilly "metaprogramming."
As for the nonlocal eighth circuit, we shift our focus toward the purpendicular dimension of the graph which stands for Psi(x,y,z,t), the probability of finding a particle with particular characteristics at a particular spacetime value. As before, we shall see what happens when there is a compression, this time of Psi values, but as the wavefunction is not symmetric about the x-axis as it was about the y-axis, there are now two degrees of freedom rather than one: Psi can either go downward or upward. But if this happens, the consequence is that unity no longer equals one! If the universe is truly nonlocal in nature at the microscopic level, this stands to reason.
For if one no longer equals itself, then the one and the many or the one and the fractions (pieces) of the whole are identical.
Even stranger, if somehow the value of Psi drops to zero, 1=0. Interpret this scenario as you will. Some suggestions of lines of thought are: infinity (or transfinity) equals nothing, unity is void, equilibrium (balance) defines wholeness, and so on.
As I have never encountered this particular metaphor before, feedback would be greatly apprecated. I did post it a few years ago on my website and at http://www.deoxy.org, and I know a few people saw it, but no one said anything, so I was not able to gauge from outside of my own subjectivity what merit if any these ideas have.
the concept of "democracy"
I often get confused when people say that: A. We are living in a democracy. B. We ought to be living in a democracy. C. Our democracy equates with genuine liberty. Allow me to state the reasons why.
First of all, without going yet into the precise logical definition of what a democracy must be, let me remind you that the United States is in fact a federal republic. Not strictly a democracy. We may claim to observe democratic traditions, but our elected officials legislate for us. In a democracy, citizens vote on every aspect of government: what gets selected as a bill, what goes on the ballot, what gets selected as a law. In a true democracy, elected officials are merely clerks or secretaries who file paperwork and carry out bureaucratic tasks -- they have no administrative power, which rests solely in the hands of the populace. In a republic, elected officials are trusted to make decisions on behalf of their constituents -- or not. It is their prerogative how they vote and, theoretically, if they want to be re-elected they must vote in the interests of the people. This is, of course, assuming that the media adequately cover all the articles of legislation which go before the floor which, for the sake of maximized profits, they do not.
But this is all academic in terms of what I intend to explore in this post. What really concerns me is how little people really look at what democracy -- our republican government, government "of the people, by the people and for the people" -- self-government, really implies.
Democracy indeed means self-government. It means rule by the people through elected functionaries who have no real coercive or autocratic power. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this, in effect, identical to anarchy? If people are understood to be governing themselves in a democracy, where does restraint of anyone fit into the picture? If there is restraint by someone over someone else, then there is no self-government, and thus no democracy. If there is restraint, people are responsible for doing it to themselves, but in no country in recorded history is this how the law has functioned. The law functions as a restraint, through force and the threat of imprisonment (and in the extreme execution), by those who have power over those who do not. And, speaking truthfully, those in power are not required to gain assent by those over whom they exert their power.
So.... where is democracy in all this? The people only indirectly choose which bills get voted on (by voting for a candidate who claims to have particular views), and how the vote on those bills is conducted; and they have no choice at all in which of those bills becomes law. Furthermore, the most historically relevant task in which a government engages -- when and with whom to engage in wars -- is also completely set apart from the will of the general population. The people have even less of a say in the matters of jurisprudence. Judges and lawyers are not much concerned about how average citizens feel about their business in court. And may I say that, in the vast majority of cases ever tried before any court, lawyers are more interested in making money than in seeking justice.
It should be clear to anyone alive that the machinations of government are set in motion without explicit permission of anyone but the government itself. In a country which calls its government democratic and sees to it that this appellation is fundamentally correct, a citizen would have to give written permission in order to be arrested, arraigned, or prosecuted. That sounds absurd, I know, but that is what the word literally means. And if something other than that is going on, then we are deluding ourselves when we think we have any real power in the political affairs of our country. You may respond: "Well, at least we have the right to vote." And to that I reiterate: yes, on who goes to congress or the white house, but not on what they do there, or at least, not on those things they do to which they do not make more than a very few of us privy. I would also add that, if one examines the candidates closely, or even not too closely, it becomes glaringly evident that the men who you should want to represent your interests in government are not running for office, have never run, and probably never will.
And I would add that none of what I have said so far addresses the question of the desirability of rule by the people. Called by some not unintelligent individuals "mob rule." Many writers and philosophers have pointed out that the smartest and most honest individuals (doubtless, there are actually a few) shouldn't have their political maneuverability fettered by those whose only aim is to lie and cheat for personal gain. These same writers and philosophers have extrapolated from this and concluded that honest and intelligent government by those few in the hierarchy of genetic heritage most fit to conduct it would most likely be superior to the debased and corrupted model with which we operate today. That is to say, as an alternative to having everyone have a say (which as has been pointed out, they do not in the least, anyway), which incurs a political reality in which personal gain, cutthroat strategies, and power-mongering are the rules of the day (i.e. a system in which those most suited constitutionally to be ruthless and dishonest will be the most successful), perhaps those who are actually interested in providing for the needs of citizens who otherwise would have very little to no means of providing adequately for themselves, rather than providing exclusively for themselves or those in their tax bracket, might provide a better standard of living for everyone.
I do not claim to have any idea how one could construct a government of this sort -- an honest one -- or how our government could be modified even slightly away from its selfish and virtually tyrannical practices. My only intention is to illustrate that the word "democracy" does not mean what most of us think it means, or at least does not apply to our system of government by the principles of general semantics. And further, that even if we did have in place what we think we really want, it would only be another failure in a long series, at least seen from the eyes of those who are not in charge of it.
musings on the synthesis and/or observation of truth
Let me briefly address the notion that the truth is a subjective creation of humans. The concepts "we create the truth" and "nothing is true, everything is permitted" indeed have some aspects of merit, which I will not go into here. Rather, I will discuss where this "truth" of creating truth (did we create that one too?) seems to turn out to be false. Let me illustrate by way of analogy:
Let's say you ingest a psychedelic drug, and look at a very good piece of artwork, art which may be conducive to increased stimulation of a more highly energetic brain, such as, for example, some works of impressionism, post-impressionism, cubism, and especially surrealism. Now: let's say that you look at a painting that you have never seen before while in the state you are in, and new and perhaps startling images begin to appear that you never noticed before in your "normal" state of consciousness. Here is the crux: are you hallucinating these images, or did the artist, being very clever and not a little familiar either with use of entheogens or a genetically warped and very possibly enhanced perception, put them there deliberately, only to be discovered by those who find themselves in these "heightened" states of awareness? You come down, and you can't see these extra dimensions anymore.
Are they really there? Did the artist paint them in? Or did you project them onto the painting? To know the "truth," you would have to ask the artist, wouldn't you? Just because you may have created these extra features does not mean that they are "truly" there -- i.e., intentionally, deliberately and objectively placed there by the artist through whichever arcane technique. Conversely, if it is truly in there, as per the artist's willful rendering, then you didn't really "create" it in any sense other than the networks of neurons in your brain constructed something coherent out of what are chaotic stimuli before they are decoded. It would be more accurate to say that the artist created it, and communicated it to you. So if it is "truly" there, you didn't create it. If you created it (i.e. creation being defined as making something novel where before there was nothing), then it is not truly there, unless by "truly there" you mean accessible to your brain and no one else's.
I would add that this analogy of course doesn't address other contradictions with the now popular view that truth is essentially a subjective synthesis, such as: the laws of physics being what they are, rather than what any reasonable human would indubitably prefer them to be (maybe read: easier to understand, and conferring of greater technological prowess in less time, for two of many valid examples), simple matters of linguistic consistency such as "my name is 'Jimmy' and not 'Kansas City Slim,' or "we have defined that shape as a circle and that shape as a tetrahedron" -- the truth of which statement and definitions you did not create, nor did anyone else in the thousands of years since those shapes were given names. And there are quantities of course. Yes, you can define quantities arbitrarily, but nobody created the fact, so far as anyone can reasonably demonstrate, that I will weigh less on the moon and more on Saturn.
The list goes on and on, of course. I just wanted to point out that the truth of the aforementioned dictum may only apply to select situations, which leads one to wonder if it is "true" at all, or "true enough" as Wittgenstein was fond of saying -- the answer to which would not be something we invent (would it?), but perhaps rather discover. (You see, as a metaprinciple, if the statement is true, then the proof of its truth does not fall into the subset of all other things to which the statement applies, meaning that the determination of its truth cannot be something that is created, making the statement itself perhaps false, and definitely inconsistent).
Like Gödel's Theorem
Stage 23: Neuro-Atomic Contelligence
Inspired by Info-Psychology by Timothy Leary
"The preceding stage exposes the brain to the high-energy language of the atomic nucleus."
Out-of-body contelligence harmonizes nuclear and sub-nuclear particles.
At this stage all energy (and consequently all time) are laid out to be integrated.
All mass-energy, including DNA, are available to the communication network. An architecture of nuclear particles and gravitational fields arises and appears.
Quantum and Gravitational physicists are now developing strong systems of thought (which is synchronous with action) to decode signals which have heretofore proven too difficult to grasp.
This is changing.
At this point in evolution, hyperspatial coordinate quasi-equilibrial dynamical systems no longer need the old equipment of the un-energized body. As Leary points out, at this stage, DNA designs are no longer necessary as well, as all of the information necessary for extraction from these molecular chains is already there.
Nuclear physicists have, over the years, developed a very sophisticated vocabulary for Sub-Atomic Nuclear events ("S.A.N.E."). Documenting and studying some of the units of this realm -- hadrons, bosons, muons, leptons, neutrinos, etc. -- is one of the first steps in understanding this out-of-body "brain."
"The space/time coordinates of the unified force-field are probably of a very different order from that of the bio-neural system -- billionths-of-a-second time spans simultaneous with billions of light years."
No matter what you do -- or where you go -- everything you have ever thought, everything you have ever been: every hue, every intonation is captured indelibly in the very fabric of the universe.
You cannot escape not escaping.
Equating "nothing" with consciousness-without-an-object
LOGICK IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: Introduction, Part I
I shall now demonstrate that nothing cannot exist. Before you get any silly ideas about immortality, I should like to remind you of Uncle Bill's charming admonition:
"Forever is a time word. Time is that which ends."
Let us begin:
Nothing (as we normally conceive of it) cannot exist, as far as language (i.e. any extant human method) can demonstrate. Nothing is something, by definition. If we want to violate this definition and say that nothing is not something, it can't be nothing, either, because the word "nothing" is a referent to some thing -- something -- and the afferent cannot very well be the absence of something, which, as I have demonstrated, would not be nothing. So, nothing (as we unusually conceive of it) exists. In the absence of nothing (or, if you want, the presence of nothing in the classical terminology), there is no existence.... so there is not nothing (or, if you want, not not nothing), because to have nothing would mean that you have observed it... which is clearly impossible.
LOGICK IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: Introduction, Part II
An elaboration upon the rather abstruse aspects of the previous post. "Nothing" is usually used to denote the total absence of anything. In those who have had insight into the sheer folly of this notion, nothing means the absence of anything but naked, un- or destimulated awareness (or consciousness, i.e. consciousness-without-an-object). Does anything exist when we are not looking? Mathematically, no. Does a tree make a sound if it falls in the woods? Phenomenologically, no, of course not. "Existence" and "sound" are neurological phenomena, and exist only as they are manifested in the brain. What stimuli cause them, you ask? Only those stimuli of which we are aware, directly or indirectly. (There is an infinite regress, don't bother thinking about it for too long). There is absence only insofar as there is no object of consciousness, and if this absence is not cognized, there is no purpose in trying to argue about its "existence." Now, consciousness without an object can be said to be the real, or at least truest, manifestation of "nothing," i.e. a ground of totally non-externally-stimulated being. For more on this subject cf. principally the writings of Franklin Merrell-Wolff, Buddha, and Aleister Crowley.
Point is there is no way of introducing objects or subjects into meaningful discourse if they have not first been discovered and observed.
I was recently reading Tim Leary's Flashbacks, and in it he stated that we have billions of unused neurons. Did he mean to say that there are capacities of the existing neurons that have not been fulfilled? Is it that new neurons are being used, or that the same neurons can function in alternate ways?