• This page is changing constantly : do not cache : instead reload

(if you should learn to do this will your toys of knowing, you will achieve a form of liberty more valuable than any other skill)

this text is in process of assembly

l.e. 051304

 


[click to enlarge in a new window]

 

An idealized diagram illustrating the primacy of the single solar season in the genesis, development and hopeful reproduction of a given solar nursery (Earth).

Modern science presumes Earth to be at about the halfway-point of her lifespan. Ironically, that science is the birthplace of the majority of metaphors and technologies that could end her lifeSpan as a sentient world tomorrow.

More interestingly, we may note that even without the threats of machines and ideas that erase worlds — there are real threats that could change everything we believe about how delicate our planet actually is. Some of them have already complexly altered our planet and species, in ways we are significantly unprepared to acknowledge or attend with awareness. The way in which the alteration has taken place is ‘engineered’ to be invisible, and to preserve its own momentum — at all costs. Yet it is more the result of an accident, than an intentional engineer.

The length and character of a planetary ‘solar season’ has a lot more to do with luck, and what the first sentient species does — than any calendar of a Sun’s potential lifespan. What we know for a fact is that we actually know far less than we imagine, especially in an age where our primary tools of knowing are distant, statistical, mechanical, and often abhor organismal reality entirely, while claiming to be its hero.

This is a common feature of mimetic predators. And ideas — and in some cases the simple lack of the right idea — can create predatory momentums that can silence a living planet in a heartbeat. This isn’t science fiction, and ‘the problem’ isn’t the result of evil, per-se. It’s actually a problem with broken toys. The toys underneath the knowing-systems we embody, enshrine, celebrate and enforce.

 

o:O:o

A planet is like a flower. It has ‘a single season’ to accomplish itself, and establish the connectivities necessary to reproduce. That single season is always of unknown duration — for though it may be tied to the star, a planet’s lifespan will be filled with times of incredible growth, vast or total devastation, and moments of impossible opportunity — just as the life of any flower is.

If a planet is like a flower, we can be fairly certain that there is something ‘like a bee’ at such a scale as well — and our metphors for this sort of bee are too primitive yet to be accurate. We are unfamiliar with such domains, being more comfortable in the relatively solid terrains scales of our own consciousness. As an interesting game, one might speculate that what some planets end up with is more like bees, and others...more like flowers.

On planets where a complex species gains mechanized perspectives, the prominence of the solar season and even terrestrial circumstance can be superceded entirely by the rapacious replications and reproductive erasures of machines. This process damages the users as rapidly as their world, and is the current situation on Earth. The solar season has been superceded by human models, machines, ideas and arbitrarily omnicidal activity — primarily over the past 300 years.

Our own species arose to sentience in a clearly edenic phase of the terrestrial flowerAnimal’s development. We have been cast from the garden many times in our as yet brief history, and each time we have suffered the terrible sacrifices required at the altar of our forgetting. Yet it is clear that there is a direct relationship between human sentience, our cognitive health, and our planet’s living diversity — so direct that they need to be understood as a unified organismal symmetry. The Earth was never a circus of competing forms until the model of competing forms competitively replaced all other models. There is an extremely deadly feature of this forgetting, which infests every domain of our persons and cultures at this point in our precession into destiny — and it is relatively mechanical in its simplicity. Simply stated, there is Life on land, complex animalian life — only because there is thriving organismal diversity capable of sustaining the necessary atmospheric requirements. Life on Earth is far more delicate than we suppose — but terrestrial life — the kind requiring an oxygenated atmosphere is absurdly more delicate than ‘Life’ in general.

Our form of life is and will continue to be subject nearly instant extermination as the result catastrophic atmospheric interventions in a variety of domains — some obvious, and some not. We have heard much of this, and a common answer runs along the lines that ‘well, if not us, then the next species will succeed’. There are many other similarly flacid apologies relating to our inability to act at these scales. Strangely, our action is creating one of the threats — so our ‘inablity to act at these scales’ is a lie.

It is not the case that a successor will inherit the Earth and succeed where we have faltered. Part of the reason is that Earth’s season for generating children of our sort is most likely over. She will keep making children, atmosphere allowing — but it is exceptionally unlikely she will ever produce the sheer and luxurious diversity in which her first symbolic sentients were born. That was her youth, and we were her first and possibly her only complexly sentient children. Rather than being a step in the ladder, as many wearysome apologists suppose — homo sapiens may in fact be her only shot at succeeding at what she was born to be — a flower. A child of the stars, to take the other children to the stars. And for Earth, we may represent her only shot at such a child.

o:O:o

We know that in the past, terrestrial crisis has come from within — in the form of unexpectedly vast change and from without, in the form of visitors and changes in context and medium. With the extermination of the solar cultures, and the tokenization of their essential understandings in the cultures of their prosecutors — our species lost contact with the Sun.

With the rise of nightlit cities and the vast proliferation of radar, radio and transmitter technologies over the past 75 years, much of the terrain in which a living star once spoke in our cells has been replaced by the terrifying sameness and disturbing regularity of signals in myriads of bandwiths outside our normal range of conscious sensing. Transmissions — essentially machine-noise — have replaced much of our experience of the Sun at a cellular level, and we miss the horror and black humor of the fact that one such device responsible for this is actually called a cell-phone.

We depend upon science to inform us if the marvels of the technologies it appears to provide us with will erase, poison or cripple us beyond all possible benefit of their proximiity, and yet we have forgotten that the toys we question lead science by its nose. And many of them are not toys at all, but the children of the children of machines — and mechanized approaches to modeling and enforcing what are at best false realities. It is, after all, the job of science to shave away all poetry, all novelty, and all mystery — to erase character entirely, and then simulate it — revealing the torrid mechanism of its dead and often deadly ‘facts’. Commerce is merely another version of this game, as is advertising — and ‘insurance’.

At the same time, science has given us fascinating windows into dimensions and lineages of activity that are invaluable as well. Perhaps especially as regards Earth. One of these tidbits of impossible value is that her magnetic envelope goes through changes that are often dramatic, and sometimes sudden. Recorded in volcanic strata are radical reversals in Earth’s magnetic field, and it’s likely that these wreaked havoc with terrestrial life in many instances — because during the process of the reversal, the surface loses its protection from the Sun’s energetic conversation.

This alone could cause shockingly rapid weather and atmospheric changes; and the land-vegetation could fail almost entirely in some or many locations extremely short order. So too the animals, for not only would their food be gone, but many would be stricken or arbitrarily sterilized in the process. The potential for such a flip to occur in a given generation appears somewhat meager— usually less than twice in a million years is our current best guess as to how common this affair is.

Humans have not had recordable language long enough to offer us much hope of understanding if we’ve recorded or passed through the loss of the protections of the magnetic field in the past during any time in our history where we might reasonably reflect upon the source or meaning of such a catastrophe. There certainly wouldn’t be any reasonable (to us) way to describe the event — and the survivors would likely be so terrified that they would not be likely to desire to call up to memories for the sake of recording them in ways that would survive to reach us.

It would be easy to speculate that some part of the exodus story could be related to such an event, or an event of similar significance, but such an idea would be best to corroborate with evidence before puruing. What we can easily know without much evidence beyond that we’ve retrieved is that this kind of event, assembled with ETO penetration, sudden geotectonic upheaval, and a few other more subtle companions form the core ring of assailants capable of permanantly silencing the planetAnimal.

One of the most crucial things to understand about extinction crises — and threats to terrestrial biodiversity — is that the later in the season they occur the more destructive they are. Eventually, even a small event is catastrophic to the entire system, carrying the potential to utterly eradicate it. For example, if a world like our own were to survive and prosper into the phase Earth was in when our species rose to complex sentience — that species would most likely find itself ensconced in the organismal womb of its birth at or near the apex of their planetAnimal’s biodiverse complexity.

Over time, the topmost species of pyramid formed by the diverse complexity of the environment becomes an extremely powerful arbiter and exponent of planetary sentience and success — not merely their own. Though it may seem arbitrary to speak of a planet’s goals they cannot be appreciably different from that of any terrestrial organism — albeit at another scale.

A planet wants, alike with its many scales and domains of participants, to survive, prosper, elaborate itself — and reproduce. This is not limited to a single species. The planet wants the whole garden to reproduce. If we merely grant this as an idea, we can see two polarities of the crucial decision the first sentient species will make in its ascension: It will value the biocomplexity and diversity of the planet as it values its own species, or it will act to eradicate them and render itself into and its world into dead tokens. The seriousness of this decision may not be immediately apparent, because it is rarely clear to this sentient species what the actual nature or shape of its real powers are until it is either successful or defeated by its own complexity. Such a species cannot know empirically what its purposes may be, but it can define them, or allow them to be defined by systems of relation.

Essentially, if this species attacks the biodiversity of their planet — they attack their own cognition, and health directly. We cannot say ‘they do not know this’ — for they are filled with a clear organismal understanding of this. But they can invent ways of knowing that deny or silence their organismal understanding, and as this process proceeds, it gains exponential velocity, terrain and domain of effect, and subtlety. With each loss of essential complexity, population and terrain that is acquired by their artifacted relation-activity — this species will suffer a exponentially relational loss with(in) themselves, not in a single domain — but in all domains.

Should they proceed to essentially misunderstand their relationship with each other and their world they will perforce of nature engender two catastrophes:

a: they will damage the sentience-ladder that makes possible their own complexity (they will become ‘organismally dumb’).

b: they will at least temporarily — but more likely permanently — damage or destroy the essential generative capacities of their planet in an extremely short period of time. This may occur at a variety of ‘scales’ — but the outcome is erasure, and each of the scales links to the others in such fashion that the anihillation of one is a suicide pill for the entirety in many domains.

o:0:o

If we ask ourselves about sources, and seek back into time for the roots of things in general — we establish a game where the very terms we use may become explosively charged with the expansion-powers they accrue when properly linked into the major participants in their own lineages. We aren’t used to the idea of a self-expanding metaphor, I mean, we believe we ‘learn by rote’ because we’ve been obliged to, scripted to, and it is demanded, culturally and socially — even linguistically — that we succumb to this.

This game is rarely played on Earth, or remarked upon, because in the games of knowledge we’ve agreed upon — we tend to stay out in the branches of the tree. And out in the branches is ‘mostly artifact’. Meaning, it’s a far cry from its source, and may reflect more ‘copyMeaning’ than ‘sourceMeaning’. Most of us will never see or touch the trunk, the roots...or the source of the tree knowledge itself (unless I get my way) — yet merely by playing slightly different games than we’ve been taught we can experience something more profound than any fiction — more profound than all of human ideation combined — actual conscious connectivity with the scales of sentience with(in), ‘below’ and ‘above’ us.

These games can result in extremely unexpected and powerfully accurate ways of knowing, which are profoundly enlightening to experience. Few of us have had such experiences, except perhaps in brief flashes. On the other hand, we could be having nothing but this experience, and instead of having it — we are obliged to funnel the essential momentum into the game we call rational consciousness, and play only by the established and agreed upon ‘rules’ — as if no other choices existed.

One of the things I am speaking of here is that the terms we use — in their anatomy and methods of assembly — have significance, powers and features we do not suspect at all. Since we have not examined (nor been introduced to) their sources, we are extremely unlikely to discover this on our own, and scientific exploration will not suffice — for in this game we are seeking the sources of logics of observation, and thus the tools they spawned will be peculiarly inappropriate for our task — except perhaps as useful toys — or riddles that may lead us to their sources.

It is possible, for example, to properly encode a simple story or set of metaphors such that they functionally form a self-expanding knowledge-lexicon which gains velocity as it expands ... and is quite miraculous to craft, encounter or experience. It is my intention to accomplish this, and much of my work is organized toward providing the elements that underlie such toys, at the moment.

We were never told that it is possible to interact with a single knowledge token in such a way that it becomes a self-expanding enlightenment toy — yet this is precisely what we ourselves are, as individuals and in common assembly. Words once enhanced these capacities in our species. But this is nothing at all like their actual current function. The ancient features of language, however functionally obscured in the modern moment, are still present and accessible — if we can playfully correct the elements of perspective that separate us from them. Part of this process, involves making sure that the roots and templates of what we know with (metaphors) are formed in such a way that they tend to correct themselves more toward accuracy over time — instead of toward a specific perspective, way of observing, token system, or opposition to accuracy in general.

As a game, let us take a simple concept-metaphor, that of a ‘lighter’, and examine it a moment to see how it might be constructed. I require a stage within myself for me, one for ‘a separate object’, and one for something like ‘portable device’ inside the separate object set. Within the selfSet, there is a place where one can reflect upon the identity, action, relation or function of the lighter, as if in an imaginary mirror, which is not actually visual, but instead somehow cognitive. Perhaps this area has three subdivisions: poetic meaning, functional meaning and ‘place where this token connects to other trees of tokens’ — the latter having many potentials of simultaneous connectivity inward, outward and above and below its scale. So, after all is said and done, I essentially end up with a string of relationTerms, which I might poetically, or playfully (like a child) assemble thus:

something:
(

(not-me)
(not alive)
(small machine)
(temporary type: invoke (transfer): fire, heat, light)
(change type: refuse)
(change portal: contained reSources)
(can makeSmallLight)
(can makeSmallHeat)
(can ignite)

)

Now all of these features, which might appear somewhat like a programmer’s toy at first glance – each of them has an anatomy. We can choose various ways to talk about this, and we have chosen some — such as science, philosophy, &c. We can examine them semantically and whatnot, and we can survey all of theory on language, cognition — philosophies of knowledge — like mad monkeys desperately seeking in the library without noticing they are seeking with the book they seek. And a lot of this activity will actually be extremely useful, and even entertaining. More often than not, the net results however are catastrophic, because we tend to erase things in the library — thinking perhaps to fund our desperate search — that, in turn, erase things in ourselves.

But before we can have any of the concepts outlined above, we need spaces for them, ways to assemble them (as well as assemblies including them as members) — and the elements and templates at the very roots of knowing — and this in unexplored terrain — for it has long been thought (or found in practice largely to be) either impossible or absurd to attempt to remake or examine language with itself, in situ — without overly complex jargon and academic maps — yet this is what we ourselves do with language, all the time. We just don’t really see it that way.

In our model of the lighter (and indeed of almost any concept or assembly whatsoever), we can trump most if not all of the root elements by indicating their most essential progenitor: the Sun.

Without it, there is no concept for ‘animal’, ‘device’, ’light’ or even fire.

There are no knowers, no ‘users of terms’, no modes of assembly for representation — de nada.

There are some other roots: separation, for one — and spatialization for another. Light is one of these roots, as is ‘not animalNature’. What I am trying to point out is actually fairly simple to notice — most of you will succeed instantly at this. Some will instead form intellectual, skeptical or philosophical attacks, tests, or defenses as a part of a an attenuating process of knowledge-relation.

Yet what I am actually trying to convey is extremely difficult to notice directly, and my goal is that you have an experience of it, rather than a tokenized understanding. The Sun is the source of the very roots of what we know with. It’s presence is conserved in every human artifact, including these letters — and when it changes even slightly, we on Earth change vastly — when we do not perish.

It’s also true that the Earth is similarly significant — including all her scales of children who together form an obvious unity — whether or not we feel ready or willing to believe we can contact it — we are definitely participants. So what I am hoping to convey to you is that the source of all the complexity hereabouts is essentially solar. And the Sun, is not a thing at all. It is something so utterly far beyond the privations of science and religion that even a general glimpse toward the living truth of it would utterly swallow and rewrite both, entirely.

Of all the root-elements of knowing and language we might look toward to attend directly, our understanding and cultural conventions about the Sun are of such incredible import, that to attend anything else before them can easily lead us into games where we are erasing what we propose to nurture. Any change to this single holophore, simultaneously changes all of knowledge, and thus all of terrestrial experience. In the same way that we have vastly failed to accurately metaphy the unityBeing, we have also failed to accurately metaphy what can only be a crucial organ of translocality within the cosmos. A star, is no accident of gasses — of this I am and will remain utterly certain for the rest of my life — for my human experience completely denies this, as it has perhaps since I was very small.

Try and take an idea or meaning, and remove the Sun from it. Math disappears. You can’t have any concept, because there are no perceivers. The entirety of the history of the complex interactions between light, surfaces and living eyes — goes *poof* — and is gone, having never happened (at least in any way meaningful to anything we can speak about). There is no number 1, or temperature, or ‘movement’ that may be reasonably discussed, because no discussers arose — there was no local star to demand or envitalize their arisal. As you remove the Sun from any question’s roots — you, your question, the idea of question, my life — this text — everything known and unknown locally — disappears with the Sun. And this, is the sign that what we are referring to, is a holophore — a root meaningSource — that all other knowing links directly into before it acquires any sort of structure whatsoever. What metaphor can be made if the Sun doesn’t come first?

For the human child in the modern moment, the most significant cognitive, emotional and physical relationship will generally be one of the parents, commonly the Mother. This relationship recapitulates the relationship between our species and our planet. Additionally one of the parents will come to represent ‘the source of knowing’, very generally and very intimately. And this relationship recapitulates that of our species with the Sun.

So we have hopefully established that ‘the Sun’ is a holophore — one of the root-metaphors that all other metaphors must refer to in their own structural arisal and connectivities. If one ‘creates a wrong meaning’ for a holophore — the resultant damage spreads through all of knowledge. Corrupt a root, the entire tree is afflicted, but in the cognitive dimension — this effect is far worse than with trees or even teeth — a broken root here affects every possible tree without exception.

But the opposite is also true: as one’s metaphors for a root-meaning element become generally more accuratethis translates into a similar response in the entirety of knowledge — instantly. In other words, by experientially re-metaphying certain root meaning-elements — such as time: organisms : knowledge : star : planet, &c — we can radically affect (in very unexpected and exciting ways) the entirety of the meaning, acquisition, and potentials of knowledge. What we mean by ‘communication’ will change entirely in such a circumstance, as well.

In correcting holophores, our species will find a potential so far beyond our capacities to previously understand — that post-correction nostalgia will result in fits of humorous anecdote. We have been living, for thousands of years — in the dominion of broken holophores. An unbroken holophore is something we have rarely experienced. It is a living token that never fails to lead one ever more quickly toward more accurate phases of itself...and this...is the source of an entirely new way of knowing. One that there is no record of on Earth, and whose general shape — about to become everpresently common — has rarely been glimpsed, or spoken of — except in broken metaphors that distort what they were crafted to clarify.

I am speaking of the ability in average everyday humans to experience scalar learning — a form of learning where a single person can learn more in a few moments, than in a lifetime of study — and I am not speaking about a theory, but rather something I have experienced directly and with others.

As an example of such a correction...let us pretend we were taught that the Sun is the prosentient progenitor of a solar nurseryAnimal called Earth. Let us further pretend, that as far as objects go — the Sun is the single most significant local object of energetic communion and genesis for organismal life on Earth — perhaps after Earth herSelf.

Let us imagine that we were taught that all that is locally apparent is the result of the marriage of the Earth and the Sun, and that the Earth is a living animal whose dances of solar fertilization result in ever-more complex children, such that each new child conserves all the characters and potentials of the previous children, in a wonderful kind of living ladder, which is like a tree of eyes.

Perhaps we could pretend we’d been taught that the incredible purpose of all of this was a universe learning itself anew — here — in us — together.

We must rediscover together, experientially , what the Sun is, for whatever it may be, our models are standing in the way of our experiential connectivity and understanding, and this is not only damaging our minds, persons, cultures and societies — it is also destroying our nursery — at a velocity that is increasing geometrically.

 

 


I remember when, around age 5, my father and mother attempted to explain to me ‘what’ the Sun was. I think they were in their mid-twenties at the time. My father told me, essentially, that it was a ‘gigantic nuclear explosion’ (it would be 13 years before I would come to truly understand the significance of this term) in space. It was many times the size of the Earth, and one day would grow so large that it would swallow up most of the planets, if not all of them.

I was horrorstruck: my father had presented the Sun as a deadly machine just waiting to burn us all up.

That night, I woke up screaming that ‘cancer was going to get me’. I had not had a nightmare, as my parents suspected, and I could not be soothed from my terror. The reason for my inconsolable fear, (which I was later shown from a very interesting set of observation-perspectives) — was that the cells of my body actually believed my father, and if what he was saying was true — they knew that I would get cancer (which in my mind of that age was a cross between a monster and a disease).

At that moment I was reeling beneath the shock of been penetrated and colonized by a dangerous and predatory meme: a human idea about something that, pretending to expertise, actually breaks our sentience as it concerns the reference.

I was encountering a human theory of the sun that was omnicidally misfounded, and my entire body knew this, but it wasn’t the sort of thing I was complex enough to discuss — except perhaps in the way I actually manifested this knowing. Children aren’t commonly credentialed as knowing anything, which always seems pretty strange to me, because as a child amongst other children — it was always clear to us that there were many ways of knowing, whereas — what the adults called knowing, was a deeply strange and often extremely threatening thing. It also seemed in nearly total opposition to the ways of knowing we employed as children, especially in small, tightly-knit ‘rings’.

On any world where a complex sentient species gets the wrong idea about their Sun — living things end up in deadly peril, fast. You can call it my imagination, the knowledge of having been on many worlds, lunacy — call it what you like, but children are always wondering what kind of world they arrived in, and — just like space explorers — they know things about what’s good for the nursery, and what isn’t — in terms of ideas and actions. A body full of bad cells = cancer. Sure, I didn’t know what I was screaming about exactly — at least, not technically — but as a sentient hypersystem, my body was able to cognitively express its distress and acknowledgement of the fact that it had been born on a badSunWorld — not one where the Sun was bad, but where the local sentient species had a broken idea — one that would break not only their relationship with the star — but their ways of knowing, and nearly all of their modes of assembly and valuing.

I might have been 4 or 5, but biocognitively, my little universe was aware the idea of a sun that was generally just a giant explosion was the wrong idea.

The essential novelty of what children are actually wondering about and in active contact with when in any way free or encouraged to do so is often as startling as it is refreshing. The last 4 year-old I spoke with about the Sun let me know quite emphatically that he and I were touching something very different from the others as regarded the Sun, and light.

In a code that only he and I could understand, though we had never met ‘in-person’, this child spoke very eloquently to me. He was wearing a blue t-shirt, with a print of the solarSystem on the front. The Sun was emblazoned in the center of the print, and it took up about a 3rd of the imageSpace — so it was an unusual shirt because the Sun was gigantic in comparison to the planets and their orbitals (I actually did not notice this directly until our conversation had concluded). The child and his sister (and perhaps another child) had been making pictures on the ground in colored chalk, and one of them looked somewhat like the starBurst in the image below, except it was twisty, like an asterisk where the ends of the lines all curve counterclockwise.

The child and I had been establishing contact according to an ancient game known only to infants and animals. This was done without alerting anyone else who was present, and when this dance was complete, he grinned at me, jumped on top of the asterisk, and, with very playful and mischievously secretive character (as though others might hear us but never understand) said: “This is my firecracker!” I replied with encouraging certainty that he was telling the truth. Then he became slightly more secretive, and said: “I ride it!”. The mode we were communicating in is not human language, but sometimes uses that for emphasis. I knew what the meaning of his message was, because I had ancient help in translating it as he sent it to me. Here is what he meant:

“I am the favored of RA(y), and I ride in Light!

I get the feeling that whatever his parents or others may have told him about the Sun, it was not much related to explosions. Maybe his mother or father told him it was a living transport instead of an explosion. The sense I got was this: whatever his parents or others may have told him, he was talking with(in) the Sun — in the moment of his jump, his announcement and probably a lot of other moments — in fact...our whole conversation had been the result of doing this together — we were not merely exchanging tokens. What he meant was this...

“You and I ride sentient light together and no one else can see! Isn’t it fun?

Please believe me when I say that my response was almost ecstatically affirmative.

But why exactly is it that no one else can see?

 

o:0:o

From the local Star various large and smallScale forces first find formative assembly, and from then on permeate localSpaceTime with a set of momentums that result in systems (and organisms, and sentience) of vast and complex potential and form. These momenta are communicated from and into the universal medium with(in) the Star, but locally, they create some extremely unique circumstances. Perhaps a parable could illustrate them in the broad stroke...

Imagine that there is a special kind of (sentient) universal understructure, such that, at every scale and in every domain of assembly — it can only produce something very generally very similar to it’s own structure — anything at all (momentum, object, time, concept, relationship, imaginal form, stars, planets, minds, &c) can only be a uniquely reflected material, cognitive, connective or biocognitive replica of this underlying sourceMomentum. And each locality is similarly self-reflective, containing ever more diverse and complex duplicates of itself and its containers and relations.

No matter how dissimilar some scale or perspective of an object, concept, language, or phenomenon may appear — this appearance belies an essential symmetric relationShip with a singular ’ancestral source’ in all cases. One can choose to seek and follow this symmetry, or choose to defend its denial, essentially. Any move that isn’t clearly in the domain of the former, is actively and functionally in the domain of the latter.

Any actual manifestation of this essential immanence is in fact a universal and pantemporal instance of the entirety of this character-substrate — uniquely rePresented as ‘locality’, with features of connectivity, relation, character, momentum and structure unique to its scale, shape-features, velocity domain and organizations of momentum in relation. If two things arise, they may be similar in template, but just as similar as they are — so too are they unique from one another — and this is the case at every scale and in all domains.

So this immanent sentience elaborates itself throughout timeSpace in a game of extensive (extending) locality establishment. This is something like the activity of a neuron awakening an entire system of neurons simply by being activated a few times near a sleeper. The universal media is something like a knowingField that can be locally activated by a form of penetrative contact with various strands or vortices of momentum (or their opposites). It ‘sends a progenitor’ to first establish local presence (in a way), and from that establishment blooms every possible kind of novel manifestation, in scalarly emergent symmetry.

There are many characters and forms of such symmetry; we can see that it is not merely numbers and forces that draw the elements of a solar nursery into existence, and begin the spewing forth of stars therefrom — and that thence a star may emerge which may come to be married to a world that will ripen, become fertile, and give birth to biocognitive children.

And it is at this point that the entire game which has been played out on a cosmological scale, with stars and gas and energy and planets and such — now finds whole universes of new expression — about itself, with(in) itself. On such a world, the establishment of presence goes beyond planets and stars entirely, and into their living children.

At this scale, the essential immanence is seeking ever more complex and diverse magnification — along with seeking survival. This is as poetic a process as it is mechanical, if in fact the mechanism is not almost entirely an illusion of approach, which in nearly all cases I have found it proven to be.

So with the establishment of a solar nursery, and then a star, and then a terrestrial nursery — we see one scale of a psybiopoetic process that emerges as living children upon the surface of the planet. And at this point there are cataclysmic forces drawn into play with(in) the world, the children, and even the stars and planets themselves. For this is immanence in a quest to at once survive, and know itself more completely.

From one perspective, we could see this as something like a war of learning-machines, bent entirely on domination and survival only for their person, kind, group, or closeTerrain. But there is something far more amazing than this at play, and it involves us directly, in each moment, and not as spectators.

From the moment life arises on any world, the Star and the planet — the entire system of planets nearby as well...is totally transformed. It may seem absurd to us to believe that the presence of the first two cells on Earth changed what Pluto was — and yet this is entirely the case — for the arrival or arisal of life here transformed the entire local system into a biocognitive garden. And this sort of garden would, in its natural elaborations, comprise itself of children, within children, within children.

Given time, what these cellular children do primarily, is assemble more diversely complex connectivity with(in) themselves, their environments, and their abilities to manipulate these domains — with something we might call cellular intention (the real source of which we are speaking of as our essential immanence). And this results in ever-more complex potentials of something we might call distributed sentience-lensing. This sentience-lensing (which again is the result of the complex locality of the source-immanence) is, I believe, at the core of everything we have relegated to anomalous human cognition, superfunction, and even the miraculous. It is not ‘psychic’ to lens sentience, our own bodies are nothing but scalarly orchestrated gardens painstakingly and magically assembling themselves to accomplish this very thing — and we utilize it in every possible activity of conscious or physical or energetic nature. We are simply not allowed to see it in its bare simplicity. When we remove the science, and the religion altogether, and merely look closely at ourselves, our world and each other, what we find revealed is actually pretty obvious. It’s a single vessel, of incalculable rarity and delicacy — in which billions of universes are opening their eyes upon each other, and hoping for the possibility to belong — the essential liberty to know and express and experience. To offer the gift of adoration, in mutual celebration of a quest so timeless that no book shall contain its slightest seed with any accuracy — except that book be living.

Waves of opportunity, catastrophe, and assembly in scales upon what has been preserved and elaborated results in vast biological and thus cognitive diversity. The purpose of this is to drive the entire system geometrically toward a single goal: biocognitive hyperconnectivity. Dr. Allen Kurzweil knows a thing or two about hyperconnectivity, but most of what I’ve heard him speak of relates to technological connectivity, whereas I am more concerned with the animalian or organismal dimensions. If I was pretending to be an eminent scientist, and I was asked why biocognitive hyperconnectivity might be the single most crucial resource a planet could have, sustain, or produce I might answer something like this:

If you manage to get to a place in planetary development where you can sustain connectivity between complex forms, scales and assemblies of diverse elements and goalSystems, you get a summary set of symmetry options that utterly defy common models and knowledge. Essentially, you can build and animate hyperstructures in such a fashion such that their every activity amplifies the potential to lens sentience geometrically — if we can define sentience in terms of biocognitive hyperconnectivity. Once established, there is nothing more essential to sustain or elaborate. Damage to the complexity or diversity of the constituents, emerges in geometric proportion in the entirety of participants. There may be many domains and dimensions of unmetaphied participants, as well.

I‘m not pretending to be a scientist, however. I’m one of the participants, like you. I believe Earth to be an organ with(in) the star, more than I believe her to be a planet orbiting a star.

 

[mark of translation in process]

 

o:0:o



Over past 400 years, ‘everything we knew’ was dramatically recast in the image of the physical sciences. And that has recast what we are and can become in the metaphor of the machine. If ever there was a metaphor more inhuman, more abiocentric, and more abominable to the world I still exist upon I cannot name it. Humans are not like science, or like machines. And we are totally unlike the models presented in philosophy and religion. We, I must beg you to understand with me, are nothing like models at all. What we are ‘most like’ simply cannot be modelled — because it is evolving at speeds and in domains we have no metaphors for, at all. And that means that we must treat all models as nothing more than toys.

In fact, the very ways we came to know or believe in the various species of knowledge that largely control our lives, minds and planet were not selected by us, or, strange though this may seem, by anyone in particular. Instead, from a garden of thousands of millions of logics, and ways of knowing available to any complexly representational cognitive (crc) like our species — we decided to select a very small portion — and we managed to select, in the large only those ways that might enslave or consume not only their users, but the rest of the garden. To me, this is more than suspicious, and it accounts for the skeptic’s ‘reasonable‘ faith in the failure of human nature to see or establish a society in which wonder and heartful communion may truly find nurturence, and prevail over the oceans of mimics pretending to this rather humble position.

Here’s the essential problem: when a species decides that a single mode of knowing is the only correct one, be their decision functionally or overtly real — it is very similar to deciding that, for example, only one miniscule bandwidth of radiant energy is required for all functions of life and cognition. Were such a decision made in a domain that was not primarily cognitive — it would immediately erase the deciders. There are as many ways of assembling logics and even modes of assembly as there are living biocognitive structures on Earth — what happened to us that led us to enthrone a single, frozen, tokenized and artifacted system over an entire garden of active and accessible potentials — nearly any of which would have been preferable to the specific shape of the current master of our minds. What exactly happened, and how can it be undone before it erases complex animalian sentience on our world?

The story is complex, in its real histories and spirals of expression — not absurdly so — but complex enough so that do more than sketch it here would be out of place. But we can paint its general shape, in a simple parable or analogy, and from there perhaps more clearly discern some of the key elements, momentums, and potentials for change. Our species’ first encounters with the momentums that would lead us to complex representational cognition, and also to static languages occurred in ancestors who were primarily animalian in character, sentience, and activity. We commonly translate the term ‘animalian’ almost instantly, into ‘primitive’, or ‘unintelligent’ — which is a serious mistake for two reasons. The first is that our own cognitive complexity is an infolding of the animalian and vegetative sentience conserved over the entire lifetime of the planet. The second is that it is a simple matter to utterly misapprehend what one is looking at, if one happens to be looking with the eyes of a complex representational sentience — and this is the case with our common understandings of animals, sentience, intelligence and organismal life in general.

Our metaphor for ‘animal’ has been raped by science and religion simultaneously into a frozen token of such incredible poverty and misapprehension that we can no longer understand any metaphor that includes this one. The reason this can happen, is, essentially terror. t-Error, to be more precise, which is what happens when, metaphorically speaking, one takes a cross and moves the nexus from the center of the circle to some other position, and freezes it there. It’s ok to move it around, but it’s a very bad idea indeed to demand it remain stuck in some new position. Functionally, this is what happened around here.

I think most people on Earth find the idea of a vast spherical explosion 110 times the size of our world a rather discomforting thought, at least, I doubt many sunbathers reflect upon the subject of their bathing with any great depth. Why should they? I mean, what’s to be gleaned from thinking about an explosion?

But what if science was wrong? Meaning, what if the Sun is nothing at all like what we have been taught to believe? It may well be that the star matches some systematic or mathematic set of principles we’ve devised to represent some of its properties. It may even be ‘something like a fusion explosion’. But what if, totally unrealized by modern human beings, the Sun is actually a God?

Some of us have encountered cultural thrisps (writings, concepts, cultural art and artifacts, &c) that have maintained a mystical or psychopoetic relationship with the Sun, as is found in hermetic and pagan cultureBranches. Most of us have heard or read about the fact that ‘ancient peoples’ (read: peoples erased by catastrophe and other people who had bad ideas) ‘worshiped the Sun’ in some kind of primitive game of superstition coupled with misunderstanding. Some of us have pondered upon the matter of stars in general, and astronomers have, by and large, taken an ‘objective’ approach similar to that of Christianity: the Sun is an object. It cannot possess character, sentience...or really, anything but a lot of outgoing ‘energy’ (as if, in any real way at all, we know anything about energy — what is it? — it’s an ill-defined holophore).

Most ‘modern’ humans would be largely incapable of reasonably pursuing any other line of speculation, even if presented with incontrovertible evidence that no one on Earth has any idea whatsoever what the Sun is. None of our ideas or models are even vaguely close to the reality of Sol. In fact, if we took all the human models ever crafted and combined them into a single metaModel of great and sublime complexity — it would be like comparing a penny to a galaxy to compare that speck of understanding with what our star is. But how could this be true? How could our models of the Sun be so badly formed?

Before I get into that topic, I want to address why understanding something like the Sun is perhaps the single most important thing our species can be actively pursuing — because there is something very peculiar about this specific metaphor — if it is broken, or wrongly comprised in the minds of its users — it damages the potential to make or use metaphors at all.

The reason is simple: the Sun is not a metaphor. It’s not even properly what I call a holophore — it is a hyperphore. Without the Sun, there would be no knowledge, knowers, or logics at all — at least locally — in any way that might be meaningful to human beings. Whatever we believe about it affects every model we make of anything in every possible domain. So if the ‘meaning’ of the phrase ‘the Sun’ is generally wrong, or wrong in such a way as to damage metaphors arising in connection with it (essentially all metaphors) this literally breaks both the language of those thus compromised, and their minds. It breaks their societies — and it can silence a living world.

A reasonably poetic, organic, and accurate meaningRoot for the Sun just one of those thing we absolutely must have a generally correct metaphor of reference for. There are a few other holophores alike with this, and my work discusses them in greater detail in other places. We must, however recognize, that underneath our metaphors lie the roots they link to, and if these are consistently or largely erroneous in the meaning-tokens they refer to or describe, these root-metaphor errors are magnified in any common metaphors and assemblies that bear a source-relation with them.

o:0:o

Most of us have been educated to believe that ancient and indigenous peoples held the Sun in high esteem. In order to connect experientially with this, however, we must be willing to place ourselves directly into an experience where we are touching what they touched, from a perspective alike with their own. It seems impossible, perhaps — and yet it is not what it seems, in this case. Gordon Ecklund, a speculative fiction author, penned a book with Gregory Benford entitled If the Stars are Gods. Published in 1977, this story explored a future in which Earth’s first contact with extraterrestrial intelligence resulted in the implication that Sol was a God. A real and actual God — one who speaks, and must be listened to.

I first encountered the book in my late teens or very early twenties, when I was still reading vast quantities of this kind of material. I found the book entertaining, and a bit inspiring — but the idea of shamanism was largely meaningless to me at that time, so I did not connect well with some of what the book had to offer due to the fact that I could not directly relate with a necessary metaphor.

Some years later, having had direct exposure to shamanic experience and expression, I re-read the book casually. During the intervening time, I had absorbed a variety of new forms and ways of knowing, and I was poetically endowed to the degree that the underlying foundations of the story found some root in my own experience. At first, I began to realize that ancient or modern peoples who held the Sun in mystical esteem were actually having a cognitive experience we do not have. I found this idea startling: how could we miss something as essential as the foundational nature of the local star? It would be like saying a whale was a large soft rock.

It is here that we encounter one of the most pervasive, virulent, and fictitious of the gremlins that inhabit the bowels of our ways of knowing. It is a vague and tenuous rule, but one that acts with tyranny toward anything that threatens it. Although it is not specifically formulated, we could say that it is a principle that goes something like this: If something that obvious were wrong, plenty of people would have noticed it and corrected it a long time ago. This is a fallacy.

Look around modern America, for example, and ask yourself: is this what actually happens? No. What happens is that iconic representations come and stand in the place of reality and experience. We would be more accurate to say this: If something that obvious is wrong, and most people aren’t noticing, something is wrong with their noticing toys — or they cannot unify their communication. A much more common circumstance is that something vastly obvious is amiss, and there exist many camps of experts fighting over how to defend or even further enthrone what is amiss.

I doubt that there are more than a few physicists alive today who would actually (meaning formally) entertain the idea of a star as a literal form or source of celestial hypersentience. There are, however at least a handful. Historically, this has been the province of metaphysics and sometimes, religion. It wasn’t so long ago that none of these discrete domains of knowledge existed — they were one, still within the egg of their genesis — and that egg was as poetic as it was logical.

There is probably a much larger handful of people well-schooled in physics who find everywhere around them consistent evidence of a sentient universe. Yet nowhere (or perhaps in very few humans) on our planet can we locate an expert in talking with the Sun — or at least, if such people exist, we in industrialized societies cannot yet acknowledge them as doing something that isn’t largely nonsense.

And this is part of the story in the book about the starGod. Aliens come and request to speak to the person who ‘best knows the local star’. They imply, seemingly absurdly, that ‘knows’ is equivalent to ‘has common conversation with’. The only person Earth can really send is an astronaut who had been to Mars. I’ve no desire to divulge the artful plot, but eventually it becomes clear that humanity has long lived next to something that science knows nothing whatsoever about, and that something is celestially important.

It’s pretty hard for us to say with any certainty what a star is, so a lot of our time is spent discussing how various forces interact and how we can test theories about relations between objectively modeled forces and bodies. This is all very interesting, unless one makes a rather bold and fundamental error. At least, I consider it an error. Here’s the error. To let a tiny shred of understanding lift itself above all other possible understandings and gainsay any who would displace it to a lower position, or change its relations with other positions in a fundamental way.

We like to tell ourselves, however, that we have discovered what a star is not, and one of those things is an animal. A star is not an animal, we think. We have also decided that it is not a character, in general. We believe that it could no more exhibit persona than could a plastic bottle.

Since a star belongs to the class ‘thing’ — it cannot have, for example, emotions. A star is not a God — most of us would no more pray to the sun that we would pray to a drawing of a person praying. But might we not, for all we have learned and come to know, now be in a position to re-evaluate what our ancestors (and other silenced people) appear to have laboriously expressed and experienced? Why are many of the modern people who talk to or pray to the Sun considered to be insane? Why does the Sun figure so significantly in the inward mysticism and hysterias of some who are diagnosed with biocognitive disorders such as schizophrenia? Perhaps we have missed something so obvious and essential, that it has clouded our every other perfectly rational process. I believe we have.

I believe this for a startling reason: around here the Sun is the single most significant object in many domains (almost all) of organismal reality. This has some truly unexpected repercussions, and most of them are best revealed by following questions rather than positing answers or becoming skeptical.

I remember the strange calm and fervency with which a young female friend of mine related to me what at first appeared a self-destructive response to the enforced isolation that her unique and heartful creativity often forced upon her. Having written a fantasy novel and invented a universe, she found herself alone amongst peers and companions, and could find no garden in which it nurture the songs that were rising almost unbidden in her. She confided in me one day, that ‘there’s something wrong with people’s ideas about the Sun, or there’s something wrong with my eyes — or there should be.’ Here’s what she meant:

For long periods of time over a period of three years, out of something like total despair, she would gaze directly into the sun, eyes open and unshaded. She expected to be blinded by this behavior, and modern understandings of optics would support this supposition in the large. She said, however, that she could detect no damage to her eyes from what must have been 100s of hours of direct sunGazing without obvious deleterious effect. Congruently, in a recent conversation with my mother, who underwent a period of classically schizophrenic breakdown, she told that, while she wouldn’t want anyone, especially me, to get the wrong idea and damage their eyes — she had spent long hours gazing into the Sun during the primary phase of her event.

During my own experience, had I been obliged to explain my experience and understanding of the Sun to any sort of official, for any reason at all — I might well have been considered insane, or even treated as one who is insane. Partially, this is because to hold or pursue speculations (which is all humans have in terms of knowing, in general) that are unpopular, or uncredentialed by systemic gorgons of ‘law and academy’ is to be subject to being treated with grave disdain, open persecution, silencing, execution, isolation, torture and in general to being about as utterly misunderstood as it is possible to be. Were I to be queried on this now, I would give the answers expected by the mechanized idiots of querying, and reserve my understanding for those with eyes interested in seeing, rather than repeating the dogmas of those whose interest was in the establishment of dogmas, rather than their general accuracy, or survivability.

From a quasi-psychological perspective it is easy to make out why the Sun might play such a dramatic role in certain grandiose delusions — but this doesn’t mean the relation or sense-responses of the cognitive organism in question are fundamentally flawed. The Sun is the most significant single extrinsic object in experience – and there is no other object of its class or cohort in our experience until we can become so general that we can say that the moon and the Sun are alike. This may account for a portion of its significance in such circumstances (pun intended) as we have been examining. But this most-significant-object has another, older, and more important feature: it is the source of authorization, and credentialing— and where it is not, in can stand easily in that position due to its vast general and specific relevance as a holophore that is so essential that it effortlessly and invisibly dominates the entire sphere of semantics.

[mark of translation in process]

o:0:o

Most modern humans believe that Earth is ‘orbiting’ a star, which is essentially a large ball of exploding gas. This absurd simplification comes to us via the essentially compressive, and often rapaciously apoetic terrain of ‘science’. In actuality, the Sun is the ‘father’ of at least one living world, ours. It is also the source of science, living creatures, and all of our systems of observation and storying — and although Earth is orbiting something, I am not certain we have understood their relationShip accurately.

The idea that Sol is ‘insentient’ is absurd, since we live within its body. The Sun can no more be ‘insentient’ than I am, for it’s activity expressed in so many myriads of domains, that this activity is functionally not associable with any noun or idea or system we currently use — so we cannot easily. Sol is the ‘source of sources’, at least locally. The closest possible metaphor for our Star on Earth is one we no longer allow, and could be said to have lost experiential contact with completely: God.

Sol is the source of any system or creature that may attempt dances of any sort at all, and this means our cognitive and common and socially enforced root-metaphors by which we consider and relate with this ‘being-in-thing’ or ‘sentient window’ are completely fallacious, and they lead us to domains of conception and activity that no living creature would ever willingly inhabit, cognitively or physically. Our source-ideas, our modern root-metaphors, and even our experience of our Sun are wrongly founded in many domains.

The Sun, and the Earth. All life on Earth as we understand it is essentially cellular. There are a few important exceptions, but humans are not amongst them. At the scale of the organelle, or the floral microbe, fluctuations in electrostatic mediums, gravity waves, light waves, and the entire spectrum of the EM band mean that these ‘creatures’ of which we are comprised are in a constant state, not of contact, but of immersion in electromagnetic ‘weather’ which is sourced in the Sun, the Earth, extra Solar momentums, and the vast scalar terrains of feedback and relation in which these relations emerge.

First in the long series of incredibly improbable mismodelings is that the Earth orbits the Sun. The problem isn’t with the shape of the model, something we call the Earth does indeed appear to travel in an elliptical pattern around the Sun, and there are even regularized methods of observation by which we may rationally believe such things. The problem is much more fundamental that that. The Earth is an organ of the Sun, and we are not really orbiting it, at all. What we orbit is the core particle of a System. And it’s a system with organs, a system which travels, and a system which, like our own persons and peoples, is still learning itself as it reaches, moment-to-moment, for the next upward rung in the ladder which rises into complex connectivities, and then toward self-awareness and conservably elaborative sentience.

The ‘particle’ we call the Sun is not exactly the Sun. What we refer to as the heliosphere — this is the real body of the thing we refer to as the Sun, and we are quite near the core of that extremely vast structure. This structure is moving through space, in a fashion which is shape-similar with a comet. Within the heliosphere, created by the Sun’s incredible energetic natures, motion and output, Solar material dominates the ‘local space’ or starbody. This is essentially a comet-shaped ‘bubble, with discernable scales of anatomy:

The Termination Shock is a sphere around the Sun where supersonic radial energy emissions make a transition to subsonic flow in response to the pressure from the interstellar medium. Our models expect that it is attempting to propagate Sunwards against the solar wind flow. It is therefore a reverse shock, so that the upstream side is closest to the Sun and the downstream side is further from the Sun.

The boundary between space dominated by the sun and interstellar space is called the heliopause. We’re not certain about precisely how far away the heliopause, or "edge" of the heliosphere is, but it could be as far away as 100 AU.

The Heliosphere, ending this side of the heliopause, is essentially the entire local energetic body of our Star, and our solar system is something like a pinhead in the center of a beach ball compared to the termination shock sphere alone. In ‘front’ or ‘toward the solar apex’, there is a stagnation point where the heliosphere and the interstellar medium meet and interact.

“The interstellar flow turns at the stagnation point to go around the heliosphere and the subsonic solar wind flow is turned in the "heliosheath" between the termination shock and the heliopause to flow down the "heliotail." The solar wind inside the termination shock is flowing supersonically and radially. The terminology has been chosen to be closely analogous to that for the Earth’s magnetosphere because of the topological similarity of the two configurations.” source

So, seen from the proper scale, the Sun is like a strange sort of ‘lightcomet’ ‘swimming’ through interstellar space. Near there deepest part of the energetic core of this creature, there is a thing somewhat alike with an atom: a glowing particle of energy, with tinier particles dancing around it. When we see that ‘the shape’ of the solar system is more alike with a comet than a ‘set of rings’, we realize many new domains of coincidence in biology, language, semantics and other mapping terrains. Earth, is much more alike with an organelle in ‘cellular body’ of the heliosphere, than we are with a ‘lucky rock’ which ‘orbits’ a ‘star’. Our ideas about stars in general, created by the wars between science, religion, and industry, are badly and perhaps toxically misformed.

To remedy this, we must see that the ‘cell’ of the Sun has an ‘organelle’ called Earth, which is basically a heroic, magical, and extremely delicate ‘sentience factory’.We might poetically say that Earth represents the starTreeHandEye of the Sun.

The creatures and ecosystems on Earth’s surface also belong to the Sun, as biocognitive participant-assemblers, are in no way disposable. None of them. When machines begin to replace them, and the sentience-features of Earth’s most complex cognitive element — feedback problems arise, which — in terrestrial terms, is a template, metaphorically and physically, for the human psybiocognitive disease we call AIDS. In our human experience, our cognitive persons, and our living world, machines and their support systems are rapidly and permanently replacing their living counterparts, especially in the domains of connectivity across scales and distance.

When a cognitive participant in a complex symmetry options and deploys mimicry-features whose purpose is terrain dominance at all costs, we get something like mechanized auto-mimetic echoes, across all the scales of living and cognitive endeavor, and thus it is that the terrain dominance of machines on a living planet can actually result in, or be co-emergent with, similar cognitive and biological diseases which arise in the living participants of the system. Simply stated, our mind/bodies are emergent from the world of diversely complex living systems. When we replace those with rapidly self-replicating mechanical systems and industry, we create a feedback look, a kind of ‘standing wave’, which in this case, results in cognitive, biological, and ecospheric catastrophe. In a sense, this is a biocognitive alarm signal that something is wrong in the system or its contexts, because, again in effect, it is consuming itself, semi-intentionally (by ignoring the signal, at least) from within.

It could well be argued that the appearance of AIDS in the terrestrial populations of Earth is a direct field-effect of the mechanization and industrial activity of the last 150 years, which has proven toxic, invasive, extinctive and tyrannous to most if not all of the living species of Earth, including each living creature, person and culture. We don’t have metaphors or models that allow us to clearly understand the real significance of these ongoing extinctions of human and biospheric culture — because our models are linear and flat, and the domain I am speaking of is geometrically autoemergent, or ‘scalar’. We think as a species we’ve erased, over the last 300 years or so, some ‘few species’. Instead, what has happened is more akin with the wholesale destruction of entire galaxies. Billions of life-years of delicate struggle to conserve for us the incredible and majestic fruit of Earth’s living universes (which we need to exist and arise, and sustain our complexity), have been permanently and irrevocably erased, converted to terrain and resources for machines, which are neither alive, complex, or connective, in the uniquely organismal ways that support biospheric survival, elaboration, or connectivity.

The matter of the real natures of the relationships between the terrestrial biosphere and the Sun remain largely unexplored, and profoundly unexposed in common experience, as well as in the root-metaphor systems we base our ‘knowing’ upon. The reasons for our myopia are largely matters of metaphor, and root-metaphor. We’ve not really been allowed to develop in these domains — instead being ‘conscripted’ into support of and obligation to the ‘ways of knowing’ popularly imposed by our environments and media experience.

Where once, socially it was possible for single individuals and small groups to create radical innovations in ways of knowing, or internally describing experience, over the past 150 years especially, this opportunity has largely disappeared for the common person, community, and, as we can see in 2003, even for whole nations. Instead of having mastery or even reasonable interactions with the sources of our knowing, we are their slaves; body, mind and soul. So ferociously territorial are the thrisps of industry, religion and science, that they can eat 5 billion years of diverse complexification in a what amounts to a single instant, leaving a dead world in their wake, and thus, the dissolution of the systems themselves. This is a viral strategy, and we need to deeply understand where and why such strategies are at work in cognitive terms, and how they result in mechanization, and thus auto-systemic disorders in the biosphere.

Part of such processes arise in cycles we have neither word, nor really metaphor for. We know ‘so much less’ than our ancestors, precisely because ‘we know so much more’. In the ‘more-ness’ of our knowing lies a trap they often deftly avoided to great profit. Where we are angrily busy attempting to embellish branches on the Tree of Knowledge, they were doing something rather opposite. They were becoming deeply intimate with the roots of perhaps five branches. This strategy produced wisdom. Ours produces mimetic competition. Therein lies what may be one of the most important ‘rubs’ our species can or will ever consider, for in the terrain where these two strategies meet, and include a third, we find a trinity that can and will lead us to mutual uplift, rescue, and, eventually, the Stars. The stars of ourselves, as well as our skies.

In the cycles of phase and connectivity which involve the Sun and the Earth we find domains which neither science nor modern thought, nor religion, has paid enough attention to. When we do find such attention present, it is often coming from a useless or co-optive perspective, and thus is functionally worse than if no attention had been paid at all. But we as ‘regular people’ can make some very important observations in direct experience, and in thinking about or simulating relationships between terrestrial life, the Earth, the Sun, and languaging itself.

Living organisms are, at least modernly, biomagnetically sensitive. What this means scientifically might be difficult to put our finger on, but we don’t need to be that specific to see some important features of the terrain we’re exploring. Animals are complexly diversified cellular colony-creatures. Their behavior is emergent from their inward universes, and their myriad domains of coupling with seemingly external contexts, participants, momentums and environments. Our modern understandings of this are too complex in some places, and too simple in others — for example, we might believe that if you take a monkey from a forest and place it in a laboratory, that this creature still qualifies as a monkey, but it doesn’t. For one thing, simply unlinking any living creature from sunlight functionally changes that creature’s species. It is no longer alike at all with others of its kind who are in natural linkage with the Sun, moment-to-moment, and day-to-day. Secondly, by what token will we believe that an animal removed from all of its natural and organically emergent connectivities is still the same animal? Why would we believe it is an animal at all? It is certainly nothing at all alike with the animal it was, cognitively, biologically, physically, and in almost any other way we might explore with the exception of physical shape. Because the animal maintains its physical shape, and some habituated behaviors, we consider it alike with the ‘template’ of ‘monkey’. And perhaps on from some level of perspective, this is true, but in the more obvious, demonstrable, and general perspective we can see that much if not most of what an animal ‘is’, lies in the realm of its connectivities with contexts, environments, biologies, and other living systems.

When we change the connectivities, we change the animal. Separation from the Sun, separates us from domains our species has not modernly imagined, and further, our modern models separate our ideas, from ideas which are vastly more complete, more simple, and more true.

Every living cell exists in a kind of magnetic or energetic medium, as well as whatever other environments it may emerge with or be connective with. Because we believe ‘things’ to be ‘separate containers, of smaller things’ (like our bodies), we believe that our cells and their organelles, and other structures, are ‘separately housed’ within us. This is the general appearance and implication of our science, and yet, because we lack common experience with the domains of the ‘very small’ we don’t realize that, at those scales, there is ‘weather’ of a sort, and in domains, which we’ve not taken the time to properly imagine. Much of that ‘weather’ has to do with consistent flux in the domains of biomagnetic, or bioenergetic couplings with incredibly huge scales of activity.

[mark of translation in process]

o:0:o

Here’s one essential question — can you throw a rock of some sort at a bunch of chemistries and produce sentience? It’s a question we ignore, because we ignore the form of comparison that brings such questions on as being formally fallacious. But we have not yet answered a significant question about the Sun, which appears to truly be the best possible candidate for ‘that which organizes, rules and measures’ all of what is locally experienced and expressed. Language, thought, art — science itself — all of these are solar artifacts — they are directly arisen from and charactered by their extremely obvious and singular source: the Sun.

Most of us were not encouraged to explore a very important question: in the domain of objects, what is the most important one locally, and why? Anyone with enough time to consider this question adequately, would eventually come to rest (given modern understandings of matter and stories of creation) upon the Sun — at some point in their travels. From there, they might proceed onward, but they would pause to reflect (pun intended) upon the essential (structural and temporal) fundamental prominence of Sol — and probably for a good long time. After all, anyone who pointed to anything else would have to answer two questions:

Could it have come to be without the Sun?
Remove the Sun from now and history, what is the meaning of the thing you are pointing at?

There is a subtle and easily missed element here, an underlying schema so fundamental that it is almost impossible for us to notice it, especially with a logical or rational toy of approach. Everything around us, within us, connecting us, and even speaking with our mouths is a result of the organizing and energetic momenta of Sol. Its birth, character, life, e-motion, and moment of activity are the loudest local shout in every possible domain. There is no structure, locally, that has no source in Sol, truly it is a celestial father — of form, context, circumstance, energy — all local children of any sort whatever — and many domains we cannot even speak of — for we lack the essential metaphors, and even their roots — that would empower us to do so.

[mark of translation in process]

 

o:O:o

 

Understand : Acknowledge : Support : Evolve : Prosper