I’m trying to maintain a balance, here in this blog (as much by releasing already existing content as generating new content in the tension of creation [weltanschauung yoga]).  IOW, I try to give some space to all my parts, proportional to their role.  Consider how a muscle or a nerve shouldn’t be squeezed into too little a space (within fascia or whatever), but neither should it be given too much space (no support).  It’s like I have various stars, or aggregations, in my being, that orient me just so in the night sky of life and when I look, I want to see all the stars, not just some of them (I hope you can identify with this metaphor, too, it’s numinous, even luminous).

VISTA gigapixel mosaic of the central parts of the Milky Way from

VISTA gigapixel mosaic of the central parts of the Milky Way from

So I try to give voice to my tendencies, those parts that come together in my nature.  But of course, like with any person, there are simply too many to just let ’em all out at once.  Perhaps it will take 1,000,000,000 words for us all to express and cross-express ourselves to our hearts content, and 1,000,000,000 words will take years to write.  So some geometric/psychological unfolding must take place, like in a teacher’s analysis of origami creations to students, or DNA in a chromosome, or pixels in a photograph to the resultant gestalt in a mind, or doohickeys emergent from bebops.

We must look out from within the philosopherstone.  The stars are not only up, they are down and around too, through the Earth, on all sides.  We are in the night sky.  Electromagnetic radiation from our bodies and artifacts and planet are continuously radiating outward (and inward too) through spacetime (and/or whatever architextures there are).

If we wanted to revisit human history with advanced technology for a total perception of the human race, assuming faster than light travel were somehow possible, then we could simply calculate where is the radiation boundary for the point in time we wish to observe and travel to that place and cut across the wave to ride it backwards in time, like a spacetime phonograph, bringing to bear all the most advanced instruments of perception, etc.  A bauble for future tourists of the past.

Consider what that means, if you dare.  Nothing can be hidden from the future.  The future, if the big crunch is to be believed, and applied to all fields (consciousness/semantic/psychological [certainly, it is poetic to apply the big crunch in this way, not scientific]) is everything at once.  But then, if time is an illusion… everything’s already at once right now suspending between past and future.

I have a very precise side that I employ in programming and understanding communication and even in poetic activity (some say the rules of a language release those plays on the rules that comprise the distinctive form of poetry [poets know the vast precision they bring to their words, sometimes a single association of words will slowly grow towards an elaborating meaning over the course of the poet’s entire life {exhibit A: Leaves of Grass <poetry is a union of playing with the structures created by rules and adapting flows of meanings to the structure through which they flow |and and not only within an individual, but within cultures as well \/dance, music, and most creative endeavor is similarly related to the constraints of the medium of its creative expression\/|>}]), and I have a very cross-disciplinary side (I mean that more metaphorically than academically, I mean I have a very metaphorical side).  The two tend to weave together pretty intimately in my stream of experience, although in most of my communication I regulate quite precisely my overall expression.  While this may seem undesirable to a soft-eyed mystic centered on the notion of pan-acceptance, in reality it is a necessity of form and balance and is what prevents us from being blobs of undifferentiated Bose Einstein condensate (ahh, the license of poetic thought).

First of all, I think it is important to form ones speech towards the expectations of one’s listeners.  I write this blog for a certain type and they can find me in their own time (so it’s not an exception, even if you don’t like it).  For the rest, they’ll slide along on their way to what they value.  Fine.  But, even in my blog writing I make all sorts of compromises for readability (as unbelievable as that may be to a bewildered reader twisted into seven layers of harmonic meaning like some kind of conceptual yogi [it’s the UI, not the content — most of my parenthetical thoughts are meant to be understood at a glance both in themselves and in relation to the main thread of thought{I have to write to what I understand future systems to be like and what they expect, so that my content can be at least somewhat converted into them <forward compatibility>}]).

Similarly, but more so, in my communication for work, or with family, or commerce, or whatever, I conform to my understandings of the expectations of others.  It is absurd to speak in riddles of metaphors based in knowings and experiences that your interlocutor doesn’t have.  To speak cryptically, contrary to role-based expectations, puts a burden on the listener to piece it out.  Perhaps you’re comfortable adding to another’s burdens, but I tend to shy away from it.  When I was younger this led people to believe I was shy.  What that meant, practically, functionally speaking, was that I was content not to be burdened by the inevitable annoyance they used to release the stress that resulted from me having placed the burden of piecing out my meaning upon their shoulders (obviously that’s an oversimplification and a rationalization [I had traditional shyness as well, worried what others would think and all that anxious jazz]).

In everyday speech I can sometimes exhibit a Hemingwayesque transparency (or so I think) that prods the listener towards meanings that in some cases they’d never have likely been able to get so close to otherwise.  Of course, one has to be careful, just as in approaching too close to the sun without having proper shielding can result in severe burns (Shine On You Crazy Diamond [like some people say Bikram Yoga {read: yoga done in 104 degrees with 40% humidity} is dangerous because the heat in the room could encourage overstretching the muscles and lead to damage that may have otherwise been avoided in the absence of the artificial catalyst {depends on whether you release into a posture or try to pull yourself into it using your strength}]).

Secondly, all form is structured energy (or so I’ve come to accept [complementarity of structure and function]).  Transcending form can be a good goal, but there are correct and incorrect ways to go about it, as most seeds are intended to become not-seeds in the peculiar way of their particular species.  Transcending should not, especially in this context, be divorced from transforming.  People can conceive of a transcendence that is a sort of bifurcation, a fork, a phase change, an orthogonal moment, a discontinuous step, a jump, a leap, between two altogether different states.  This is a sort of death.  Then there is the caterpillar and the butterfly sort of transcendence.   Some people may be tempted to say this is the same sort of leap between fundamentally different forms, but any biologist knows the transformation is a continuous one.  These sorts of continuous transformations are like topological transformations that retain certain defining characteristics while leaving malleable all sorts of accidental characteristics.  Discontinuous transcendence may itself be a myth (I mean, can energy be discontinuous with itself [are we back to the possibility of faster than light travel?]).

In all my communication I have a simple pattern.  We all do, I’d guess.  I come to a lightning quick judgement (ideally [like an internalized martial arts movement/statement/attack/block/attitude]) about what I want to get across and then I feel my way along its getting there by paying precise attention to the moment by moment unzipping of the enfolding expression (into the space between) by the system it’s intended for (read: person I’m talking to).  Feedback oriented action in a system dense with such feedback loops (probably very close to a definition of life itself).  Of course, this is all idealized to a certain extent.  It’s not that I’m necessarily conscious of the details of the process as I do it.  I am not an exception to the magical number seven.  Which is to say that these words represent a post-hoc analysis of the echoes of a cognitive process by that very cognitive process.  Sounds like consciousness to me.  I’ll just zip that up into a subroutine and poof!


2 thoughts on “Metajeromeyers

  1. […] relates to hints I’ve been dropping here and there and everywhere about condensing the expression of knowledge.  I like Uncle Bob’s conclusion to the […]

  2. […] [sorry! {I just don't know any other way to be authentic.  You see, it's just what I'm talking about in this blog post, two approaches combined <mysterium coniunctionis?>.  |is the question greater than the […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s