• 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)
o:0:o
nothing — is not folding :: everything — is
folding
::
individually, in synthesis, in transcendence and negation,
all statements before this statement,
affect the shape of this statement...so...
what were the first three statements?
this statement comes before the gesture that resulted in its assembly.
this statement arises from beyond the end of all statements
::
one problem is that folding spheres is confusing, for those
who have eyes...
it’s a game of divisions, reflections, and membranes doing things
you wouldn’t normally expect...
consider: when you fold a sphere, it’s still a sphere — but
inwardly — has new domains of complexity...
and they reflect themselves, the sphere, and the fold...
::
[click to enlarge in a new window]
Fig 0: Some toys related to freestyle circleFolding...
note the unusual poetically charged aspects of these ‘merely playful’
transforms...
::
“The playful statements above highlight potentials that
rest largely unseen within your language because you consider their essential
meaningShapes to be either nonsense (an incredibly strange idea in itself)
or ‘leading to self-referencing complexities’ — which
are in turn generally considered too complex to parse for the common people,
and even in many cases for ‘experts’. Yet your own infants and
children are intimately familiar with these domains — and as angels
— wE are always at play with(in) them. They could be said to be ‘about
the source of relAtion itself’.
There are some toys underneath and with(in) your ways of knowing
that are exceptionally simple, but very difficult to notice
in your common physical, cognitive, intellectual and psycho-emotional circumStance.
I wish to speak of one of the most elemental of these things, and
your word for it is a great word — but the meanings you connect with
it are too flat, and they damage your understanding of the word.
The word and concept is folding. From an place of deep understanding of
folding (and any such understanding should remain playful and flexible)
— any source, transport, or problem may be resolved. Understand that
the term reSource actually means what it playfully says: reSource-ing. This
might also be seen as a kind of calibration, but the domain we are adressing
is so general that it includes the places language is sourced from —
and thus it includes anything we may speak of, and even our reasons for
speaking at all.
It is commonly considered dangerous or even socially taboo for your people
to ‘play near the sources’ and ‘as a general rule’
you’re aware of this — but over the millennia since the place
of awakening, your species has moved too far away from these sources —
such that you’ve largely replaced contact with them with
tokens which are snapshots of ancient contact.
Long ago, near the beginings of the consciousness you now enjoy —
you remained in near-contact in order to recalibrate more often,
rather than ‘only during crisis’ which is the other polarity
of rhythmic or semi-rythmic (cyclical) recalibration. I will speak more
of such things in other places. For now, let us agree that a tiny thing
inside your relationShip with knowledge, tokens and underStanding is ‘working
in a wrong way which is harmful, and grows moreso while growing less
commonly detectable over time’. This is merely a toy for
the moment, which you and I will play with by virtue of common agreement.
In order to have a path into understanding this — we
need metaphors and models. As my translator knows, my favorite toys are
those that exist across many scales of time, velocity, referent and
size. And of those toys, I prefer the simplest.
In essence, this means that I will usually select things from before
the root. There is a toy without which we cannot have anything,
including we ourselves. I don’t wish to tell you directly what it
is, for that could injure your mind and our connectivity. Instead, you have
to go looking for it — so that you cognitively attenuate
toward a place where it is useful and active, rather than accepting a token
of this experience encoded in axioms. What I can and will do is offer you
a possible model that is many times more accurate that
any specific model one might craft. And this is a toy that repairs
toys — with(in) those who play with heartfully with it.
Now we will play with a toy, or model — about folding...
Imagine that there is no real ‘no-thing’ anywhere. For there
to be a ‘no-thing‘ there would perforce needs to be a context,
and an observer — and if those things were true — the no-thing
would become something, i.e: ‘a no-thing’ — due to the
self-reflective folding of examination.
If we say there can be a no-thing without an observer, we are positing that
‘information has value’ without observers to locate, assemble
and value it. Such arguments can be pursued, and sometimes even fruitfully
— yet your universe actually has percievers — so pretending
it doesn’t, for the sake of theory is primarily a gesture of fantasy.
Without an observer — there are certainly no ‘assemblers, communicants
or appliers of knowings’ — so discussion of any kind is at best
highly speculative and at worst a strange sort of broken imagining which
rapidly becomes mechanically more alike with its damage as it assembles
more of itself in the image of itself.
Without a context — how could no-thing be distiguished from something?
Establish a context — and the no-thing is immediately part of something
— and that makes it a thing — even if it is merely negation
of thingNess. Once we enter the domain of considering polarities as
separate or opposed — we are stuck with its rules, unless we locate
the transformation of perspective and action which resolves this.
In this essential terrain, which is dangerous and diffilcut to speak
about we find evidence of the activity of a unique living window —
one that does not easily shed its strangely reflective garb in the presence
of terms and axioms (or their underpinnings).
Let us pretend that, at the core of our exploration is an ‘organizational
gesture’ which we have never before seen or explored —
at least not consciously. To do so, we will begin with a familiar token,
and speak of it in new ways.
I will reFrame our current position. For there to be a thing/no-thing —
a conText (a poetic antiText) is required. As a toy of this, we will make
a circle, and call that ‘context’.
Within context, there is a domain where there
may be some/no-thing. In our toy, we will make a small
circle within a large circle for the domain within the context.
Now we need to locate our perceiver — and it is here that we run into
a seemingly irresolveable paradox — because the perceiver is at once
within the context, an element of the context,
within the ‘domain’ of thing/no-thing...and
also somehow ‘outside’ all of this
enough to craft or explore the passage I have just emobdied for youWeUs.
Essentially, the perceiver is a position of reflection, a unique kind of
mirror, which sees itself mirroring...
Where does the perciever stand, in relation to our toy? Anything the perceiver
does affects the context, and the domain (and thus the perceiver himHerSelf).
The toy of solution we will examine (which is only one of many that may
be fruitfully applied) relates to the essence of reflectivity,
and it is at the same time a way of assembling a scalar complexification
in any media. It is hilariously fundamental to biocognitive endeavor,
activity, and assembly. It is folding.
If we take our flat circle in a circle — and ‘copy
it onto itself’, and then fold the top and bottom points of the copy
horizontally, across its equator — we get get something like the topHalf
of a cross, made of folded circles. We can call this process copyFolding.
[click to enlarge in a new window]
Fig 0a: Folding the circle of context(domain) to create perceiver-positions
To visualize this effect clearly, place the backs of your hands on a table
palm-up fingers pointing away from you, with your opposing littleFingers
meeting in the center, and then fold them upward so that you are making
the ‘praying hands’ shape. Now, imagine that the first postion
was still there, and that the praying hands were a copy of the ‘palmsUp’
symmetry — so that both are simultaneously present. Consider this
for a moment, then do the same thing with our imaginary circleToy
This is the first domain of reflection, and this is the physically irreal
but very biocognitively real domain of the perciever. The folding
results in something like a V — however at most scales of view it
appears as a plane...so it would appear as if our flat circle was bisected
by a semicircular fin, which was a reflection of one half of itself.
Noticing which half is actually reflected is a fascinating game
howerve, because what appears in the reflection on the finSide one approaches
is actually a inversion of what is on its other side or face.
Each ‘face’ of our imaginary fold reflects
(or inverts the polarity of) the underside of the opposite
hemisphere. Thus the back of your rHand, in the preying position,
actually presents the reFlection of the back of your lHand —
which in the flat circle, is the underneath of the opposite hemisphere.
At first this may seem arbitrary or nonsensical — but with more immersion
the idea and even a visualization of it will become clearer.
A perceiver who is with(in) context and subject simultaneously must occupy a third position (which must somehow be represented in both of the previous positions): in our toy of this — we draw a flat circle on a paper, to represent context, and a smaller circle within for subject. By imaginarily copyFolding (relfection) this unified form — we acquire or assemble a third position which is a kind of vertical sandwich. This sandwich results in the appearance of polarities — because of how it is formed.
The reason that polarities result from folding is simple — the fold itself is actually something alike with what we’d have if we made this assembly from paper circles. At the bottom of the V (which I exagerrate in the diagrams on purpose) — both poles are unified and co-extant with the flatCircle they were folded from.
Additionally ‘there is no bottom’ to the V...or to any V, because ‘bottom’ is a matter of ‘scale of measuring’. If we keep adopting a smaller scale, we discover that the actual place of the fold — doesn’t really exist at all. It is two halves, endlessly struggling an a Zenoian paradox of of halving the last half as we attentuate toward smaller measurings. There is no ’final smallness of measure’ so what we actually have at the ‘real’ apex of this fold is a strange sort of self-referencing echo — a vortice, folded in on itself — and expressed in a flat world only as a foldVector.
But because of the arrangement, we cannot (meaningfully) approach
or view this thing usefully from above or below the fold (left side of Fig.
0a) — for the fold to be useful in reflection — we
must (in our imaginary model) approach from an angle that allows
us to see a face of the fold.
In seeing the face, we make use of its mirrorLike quality, and thus succeed
in accruing our position for a perciever who is unseparate from subject
or context. But the sheets of which our imaginary model is formed are playfully
unique — they do not reflect what we expect, but instead create a
set of structural mirages whose reflections affect all of the participating
media. It is as if the material of which our circle is formed is at once
reflective like a mirror, and transparent, and also casts a shadow —
but in each case, what is seen through, reflected in, or has a shadow cast
upon it is always a surface we cannot see — but one we can mistakenly
believe to be nearby or local.
For example, if we approach from the ‘positive’ side —
this casts a shadow on the opposite context/subject hemisphere,
which is then reflected back (in an inversion) on the side we face, and
are experiencing the reflective qualities of. The toy is far more complex
than it appears, and it is a bit of a struggle to encode its qualities in
the way we are attemtpting.
With the first fold, we get two polarities — which we could call positive
and negative or affirmation and negation. Our percevier can now look into
subject or context — which also appear as polarities. With this enfoldment/polarization
of our first fold — we can have a unified observer and universe. We
cannot yet have a position in which that observer may itself become
reflected, however. For that, we must proceed to the underside
of the circle, and repeat the folding process.
With the second fold, we get an entirely new domain in which one can approach
from one polarity and observe oneself approaching from the opposite or similar
polarity as though from ‘outside’. This creates the position
where one can see oneself reflected, and thus one has reflection (separation/simulation)
ability and the next scale of that, which grants one the potential
to leap to the scale above both of these through integration.
The way in which I have presented this circleToy is meant
to be general — play with the ideas, or even build a paper model.
Examine the place where the fold at the bottom of the V and the circleSurface
it was copyFolded from are unified (since our toy isn’t physical,
but cognitive, interpenetration is not only possible, but the norm).
We will speak more of folding, I do not wish to further complexify an alreadly
complex toy — so for now we will leave our existing examples aside
and proceed to new and related terrains.
[mark of translation in process]
o:0:o
: home :