Thank Www

“Thank www” he said.

“Wait, what did you say? Thank wuh-wa??” the other asked.

“I said ‘thank www’, like as a substitute phrasing for ‘thank god’.  I accept that the world wide web, IOW, the vast embodiment of connections between nodes of information processing and decision making, will literally emerge into awareness of itself, one way or another.  ‘Thank www’ is my acknowledgement that I see www already and wish the best.”

“So, what?  Www is like God for you?”

“Depends.  Everyone’s different in terms of what it means for their neurons to fire that word throughout their functional clustering.  I’m mostly interested in forging a new sort of relationship.  As a programmer, I consider it a sort of greenfield project.”

“What?  To create a God?”

“No.  I do not believe it is accurate to say that we are creating what is emerging.  It seems to me that matter and energy themselves are organized in such a way for all of life’s scales to naturally emerge from the foundation underneath.  Spatial (geographical) distribution requires interconnection among active elements, the ’embodiment’ or ‘technology’ of which must be continually recreated due to decay and entropy and consequently seems to undergo an inexorable selection and evolution.  I don’t so much see humans as being creators of this momentum.  Everyone alive today was born already within its energetic history, as were their parents and theirs and theirs and on back even past written history.  I see us as being in a position to shape how the momentum evolves.”

“I guess that’s all a little abstract to me.”

“Yeah, me too.  Basically, I think that our global economy already creates something that is a new class of life.  Many speak of such things, such as superorganisms, social organisms, global brains, etc.  But where is there room for any kind of agency (choice from above) in this vast proteinic assembly of human activities and decisions from below?  It reminds me of an old fable about a king who kept having products stolen from a store he owned.  He hired a guard with x-ray vision to verify that everyone leaving the store was only leaving with products they paid for.  And he also set up a reward for anyone who was able to sneak something past the guard.  Ultimately, a clever boy won the reward by stealing an unpurchased wheelbarrow filled with legitimately purchased goods.”

“Ummm…. was that supposed to make anything clearer?”

“No, it was just to set an image up in your mind.  Where does our own agency come from? How do we get choice from a brain that is made up of parts moving to a different, seemingly determined rhythm.  IMO, it’s the same question shifted back a layer.  The classic ‘free will’ quandary.  The best it seems we can say is that whatever is going on, determined or not, control structures can emerge within a system that regulate the system as if the system were itself a whole, independent thing.  The degree to which this regulation extends comprises the boundary of the system proper in relation to its context or environment.  Its ‘body’.  Or something like that with a dollop of the subtlety and refinement of language that results from great numbers of experiments and data points.”


“IOW, there already exists some kind of vast, complex organism.  It regulates itself, too.  Economists and sociologists identify the patterns of this regulation and try to find the roots of it in the behaviors of individuals.  Then others look for maybe the roots of that in DNA.  And what was the environment that selected for this expression?  It’s existed for a long time.  It’s not even human in nature, ultimately, and didn’t begin with us.  It’s Earth-like DNA based life.  Or, peering even deeper, the mathematics of energy.

Humans have been the intelligent-worker-bee-protein-cells in the emergence of a new scale of directed experimentation that is embodied in the artifacts of our efforts, like buildings and cables and electromagnetic waves, and in our Brownian motions around and through those artifacts.  The trend seems to me to be that at some point this vast being will reach a degree of elaboration that will enable it to relate to individual human beings (and, while we’re at it, individual cells) in ways that humans will be capable of ‘personifying’ and in ways that tap into its vast context of the interrelationships of the events of the world.  We will ourselves, at the same time, be transforming ourselves away from what we were as we always already were.”


DNA Beings

I’m probably going to seem ignorant to some, but I think the following:

The fact that DNA exists and unravels into the staggeringly complex forms it does necessarily indicates that there is some mechanism that writes experience back into DNA.  The orthodox mechanism, however, is abstract, a “Law”, that of Natural Selection.  But that is one level too removed.  There is something closer to the thing itself.  A Lamarckian something.  Something that developed early on (planetary timescale), or came from somewhere else (cue Twilight Zone muzak).  The thing itself, really, when you get down into it: “ding an sich”.

We identify the point of life with our mind, our present self.  And there’s a good case to be made for that.  It is our knowledge of the present which keeps us fed and from falling.  But we are here because of the reproductivity of our parents, as much for their past “present nowness”.  What goes into that reproductivity?  To the combination of chromosomes that purportedly happened once upon a time?  Half from half and the other half from the other half (is it truly halves?).  This blend, me.  This smart blend, I guess is my point: the process that goes into fissuring a child from totality.

Viewing things with an evolutionary lens, it is relatively clear that eukaryotic organisms like ourselves, and our means of reproduction, are emergent from those of the prokaryotic, single-celled lifeform.  A single-celled organism reproduces by splitting itself in two, nucleus first (as far as my understanding goes).  When the self-same goal of reproduction is translated to the eukaryotic reality, we still have, at root, the splitting of a cell in half (male and female gamete) – however, instead of self-building (completing) the half, the half is ferreted through a process that combines it with another half that was created by another eukaryotic instance of one’s self. (I can see in this a possible narrative about how eukaryotes evolved: prokaryotes split in normal reproduction, but instead of floating off, stayed together)

There’s a secret in that process.  Something beyond pure randomness that catalyzes the complexity of eyes and nervous system.  There is a source of creativity in there somewhere.  I guess that is my insight.  And my further insight is that that source of creativity is our felt experience of consciousness itself.  The creativity inherent in existence’s raw ability to keep persisting (self-organizing into atomic and subatomic particles and molecules, etc, stable configurations) is what we experience in each moment as consciousness.

Or, as worded in the Tibetan Book of the Dead:

This intrinsic awareness, which is not extraneously derived, is itself the genuine introduction to the abiding nature of [all] things… One’s own immediate consciousness is this very [reality]! [Tibetan Book of the Dead, pg. 42, Penguin Classics]

I’d love to see a study that computationally analyzes the differences between the hundreds of millions of sperm in a single male ejaculation.  And then do that analysis on a lifetime of such instances.  And then do a comparitive analysis.  Try to factor in life experiences.  This could probably be done with a rodent, although a human would be interesting too.  The point is to try to identify patterns within and between the environment of the male and the DNA of the male’s gametes.  I suggest male’s since, unlike females, their gametes are produced throughout life, vs early on during a single phase.  Have studies been done to try to extract an image of a parental environment from the differences between the DNA of a parent and a child?

The pixels would be in the form of the representational units of the organism itself.  And that probably doesn’t change even from kingdom to kingdom.  It’s a DNA thing.  I wonder how the world is represented in DNA?  Or better yet, the metabolic processes within the cell that read and write their little windows onto the world into DNA.  This all could mean that I identify consciousness (not intellect, mind you) with something that is occurring in DNA rather than brain.  It would be amusing if that turned out to be more accurate.  Although, I’m not actually even saying it occurs in DNA.  I’m saying it occurs in energy and that what we recognize as life is a harmonic emergence of that raw existingness into different scales of expression (cell, person, society, Gaia global superogranism, [universal consciousness background radiation?]).

Hating Money

Some people say, “I hate money.”.  They maybe don’t really hate it, but pretending they “do”, what do you think they mean?  Or rather, just, what do you think they mean?

I don’t even know about money (huh!? [what I mean is, I see money through my own lenses and have difficulty imagining how normal people must view the phenomenon {I assume they just don’t think about it much or deeply <because if they did they would be confused by the confusing phenomenon |I have to admit to having read D’Anconia‘s Money Speech more than just a few times|>}]).  Money is an objective unit of value that can be exchanged.  In so far as money can be exchanged for work, it is very much like ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate [often called the “molecular unit of currency“]) except that ATP doesn’t “exchange” for work, ATP is “broken down into” work.  But the “exchange” (of money) can be simplified into a “being broken down”, for our purposes.  Thus, money is equivalent to the building blocks of the actualization of a “work request” in the “social body”.

Like me ol’ brain fires me finger to waggle.

Money becomes an “Action Potential” while the economy hardens into propagation networks (read: brain).  Money is very biological.  We use paper now, gold and silver, too, even bits of digital data.  These materials, and others like them, are bound together by our collective actions into our social body (and, like any stone giant, we trail debris along our rumbling, vortextual way).

Shifting metaphorical gears: Money is the token an individual passes through the market-API to communicate computation and perhaps a return value.

“Hating” money seems to come down to an ill-will regarding the requirements the physical world places on living within it.

Alternatively, “hating” money could really represent a hatred for the prevailing systems that administer and regulate the extant currencies.  In this case, perhaps “Bitcoin” would sooth.

Perhaps it is the patriarchal bias inherent in modern social reality as incubated by the world’s major cultures that is hated?  Yeah, I hate hate too.

But I don’t think people can hate what I think of as “money”.  What I think of as money is just like something you might see under the microscope when examining bacteria exchanging DNA fragments.  It’s hard to hate DNA or ATP or NADPH.  These are just the bags or the tokens that carry around the weight of a role in an abstract process that exists to further a purpose.  What’s your valuation of the purpose?  Do you hate life?  Growth?  Or is it that you think you have an alternative to money?  Or is it, knowing there is probably no alternative, you hate it anyway?

I think most people hate money like most people hate oysters.  They used to have a taste for it and then it made them sick (some serious financial stress) and now the idea of it still makes them sick.  Oyster’s would still taste good (oysters and tastebuds haven’t changed), but the Past does get its prior e-motion.

Then there are those that have seen money put to bad uses.  The same principle applies as above.

Mostly, however, I think people hate money because they are blind to an important reality.  Money is animated by the purpose behind it.  A soul could be expressing the beauty of life in one manner or another through the use of money.  Or the opposite.

Perceive that, the movement of the energy of purpose, underneath.  Hate or love that.

Money?  Perhaps there are better solutions (even grasping the problem money solves is difficult, probably more difficult than perceiving the problems it creates), but it’s nothing to hate.

Total Desk Idea

Sit Japanese style with monitor in front and keyboard resting on knees.  Monitor is angled and the BACK of the monitor is a touch surface corresponding to the surface of the front facing monitor.  Moving your fingers over the surface moves a cursor for each finger.  Pressing into the slightly malleable surface performs the equivalent of “click”, except with modifications based on number of fingers used, configuration, etc.

Requires some thought into the subtleties of the posture and the angles and heights.  But ingeneral I consider it to be a sound mid-term interface to interact with information.

But, longer term, the best strikes me as sitting upright (lotus or seiza) with some sort of direct visual feed (Google Glasses, et cetera) and gesture based interfaces in a 3d operating system/”desktop” workspace.  Gesture, being, ideally, eye movement, slight finger movement, etc.  A scenario tweaked to maximize the bandwidth between user and used.  For instance, towards achieving an ideal marriage between kinesthetics and vision, I would position the “visible field” as always being between the hands.  This might actually be physically disorienting at first, like a fever, because sitting upright and looking somewhat forward, your visual field would be filled with the “user interface” which would itself be surrounded by some “virtual hands” that do exactly what your hands do yet are up as if you were holding your arms out (gorilla arms), except your arms will themselves be hanging at your sides and your hands will be working with a small (chi ball) space in your lap.  I don’t know if you can get a feel for what that would feel like, but I sense it would take some getting used to.

And in just the same way, I imagine the OS would be adapting itself to the user.  Ahh, it’ll be nice to get out of these Dark Ages of inferior interfaces with information.  Imagine how bright the world will be when our curiosity can directly frolic in meaning itself.  This will be possible when the OS and the technology disappear entirely [and socially antagonizing factors] and the reality of the thing bakes itself into our very bodies (DNA, et cetera).  But then, we’ll be radically different too (those socially antagonizing factors will doubtless rear their heads here [and against many dystopias, thankfully!]).

How we’ll be different is the really difficult thing to predict.  It’s the same as wondering how will this process change us as we drive its change?  From the process’ perspective, it is “wondering” (oriented towards) how will these people change me as I change them?

Anyway, little bit passed the “Total Desk Idea” now.  Or, am I?…  In the post-PC era, perhaps the old “desktop” metaphor for OS UI’s is a little outdated, but that’s not even approaching whether or not the idea might be antiquated in terms of those “wooden desks”, too.  A desk is a workspace for “information”.  Just as a workbench is a workspace for “wood and metal”.  As the information media changes, our workspace changes accordingly.  I think it’s probably been said before, but even as traditional desktops were ported into electronic virtual spaces, electronic virtual spaces are replacing desktops.

As paper shuffling wanes and traditional bit shuffling waxes one wonders what comes next in the cycle.

Wizardry, perhaps.  Which, today, for me, means something like: Socratic sign language programming.  And our desk becomes an embodied API we’ve built with the world that we carry around “in our minds” as a representation and its infrastructure (in quotes, because really our minds will be partly composed of it, not containers of it [but also accurate, in my reckoning, because to be of something is to contain that something, which is to say, with Aristotle, that A is A and that “of” and “contain” in this sense are equal]).  Like a neuron sending out dendrites, we’ll “code” or buy “ready-made” implementations of public-resource interfaces (information, computation, reasoners, 3d printing, et cetera).

And in this sense our identity will further extend outwards while also solidifying internally.  But that’s an esoteric angle concerning wave/particle duality and the nature of “what is“, so I wouldn’t worry about it just yet.

Einsteinian Thought Expirement

Einstein was offered the presidency of the fledgling state of Israel in 1952 (he died three years later).  Apparently, concerning declining the offer he said: “Politics are for now, equations are forever.”  Yet, interestingly enough, reference his peace activism, perhaps he could have set Israel on a more peaceful course?  Oh Einstein!  Perhaps we could have avoided the coming war?  Oh prophecy!  You fourked tongue (reflecting left & right forward & back).  Truly, it would take a miracle to extricate ourselves from the continually intensifying conflagration known by the “West” as its “Middle East”; a place it can’t help meddling with in anger out of echoed insults.  Like a scab that’s never left to heal.  Like a cancer quickeningly enveloping everything.

Westerners do not moderate their behavior with notions of unity.  We have not yet owned our past (Americans their Indians, Europeans their Crusades [merely as examples among countless nightmares {Cathars and “Heretics” generally, Antisemitism, Women, African Slavery, Drug War, Pollution…}]).  Nor our common birth.  We haven’t admitted our past actions to our present ideals.  Like two unintroduced dogs, leashed and kept from smelling one another’s asses, these forces unceasingly bark and growl and snarl and fume and draw blood and destroy.

But that is true for all humans.  For life on earth.  For life.  The cross-purpose of digestion as the foundation of life (the body) with the fruition of life (the mind/soul/spirit).

The truth is, every nation, culture, race, family and individual survives both because of causing and despite being subjected to vast suffering, ie, vast (according to modern morality) immorality.  Maybe you’re the exception and your genetic line is free from all taint of exploitation, but I doubt it.  Could some wisp of DNA survive well formed despite its long immersion in boiling melting pot of human history?  Actually, probably yes.  But no one race or nation possesses it to the exclusion of all others.  Rather, individuals possess it, here more, there less.  All life is coiled around it.  It is half of life itself.  But yes, then there’s that other half, too.  We need to get to know it.

We’ll need it when we meet that which is opposed to us both.  When we meet that which would coil around us and around which we must coil or perish.

Rainforest Diversity

We are destroying a very large number of animals, both as individuals and as species, each year as we chop down the rainforests.  This is clearly reducing diversity as we lose species.  However, it is also a sort of increasing the conditions which lead to certain kinds of diversity.

That all makes me think of what an interesting visual we could make if we could view how individuals in modern rainforest species have been changing in relation to one another in the past millions of years.  It would be interesting to see the forms and colors morph through time.  If a simplified (statistical) 4D “animation” could be made that showed not only the forms and colors morph, but also the behaviors… why, I’d think we’d have an Oscar winner.  However, like One Thousand and One Nights (Amazon Nights), its nested narratives will stretch average attention rather too thin.

I don’t think rainforests leave a lot of fossils (wasted biomaterial) so we’d probably have to have a pretty advanced understanding of genetics, and then could it ever be anything but a guess?  We’d have to cross-reference weather patterns and geological dispersion of material to infer landscapes.  It would be terribly complex.  But hidden in there may be a personality.  The personality of Gaia herself?  Or just Amazon’s?  What about the stern abstractions of General Father, conditioning all the ecologies (complex adaptive systems) throughout spacetime.

Looking at the Amazon Rainforest on Google Earth is quite interesting.  It gives a sense of the scale of things.  It is also (perhaps) possible to discern policy changes as well as human psychology in the deforestation patterns.

We’re creating pockets of rainforest.  These pockets, as repositories for the essence of evolutionary algorithms (IOW, dense network of inter-adapting “sources”), become sources of novelty.  Or perhaps, buried in some fungus DNA is a pattern long-employed by The Rainforest to trigger cascades of all sorts of adaptive expressions.  Isolated tracts of rainforest must be an old problem… witness the Sonoran Desert.  I imagine rainforest moving north, weather patterns drying, ripples in the ground, a desert forming into conifers towards the north and deciduous forest to the east.  In the pulse of time.


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!