|
|
|
Acquired self as digital signal processing algorithm by PF “Being, in order to be true, has to be spontaneous.” - GW Imagine there is an analog signal that contains frequencies between 100,000 Hz and 25,000 Hz. In this analogy this is our Being. Practical metaphysics aims at an experience of this wave, and ontological philosophy aims at the intellectualization of it. However each organ of human perception has a sampling rate below these frequencies. The body might have a sampling rate of 20,000 Hz, in this example. The emotions might have a sampling rate of 10,000 Hz. The mind, which operates by habituation most of the time, has a sampling rate of 5,000 Hz. The original signal has to be reconstructed from what is picked up by these organs of perception. Needless to say its impossible for a 100,000 Hz wave to be reconstructed from samples taken at 5,000 Hz
In order to do this, it will focus primarily on external things, which register merely as impressions on the eye and models in the memory. We could say that these are very low frequency, very superficial modulations in the high frequency carrier wave that is our Being … things like social appearances, the meaning of words, the possible ramifications of an action for self and group, who is mating with whom, threats from outside, possible sources of food and shelter, and ways of keeping oneself alive. Not because these things are important in any deeper sense, but they lead to survival. Alternatively, if we had spent our evolutionary history in a glass cage where a mysterious third party forced us to choose bananas based on the appearance of their peels, then the outward texture of the banana peel would probably tell us volumes about the nutrition and moisture content of the banana concealed inside. As is, we cannot know how a banana will taste just by looking at its peel. But we might measure the intent and purposes of another human being based on a glance, on a gesture, on the intonation in a line. Women do this to a degree that boggles the imagination, and it makes sense that they would develop an apparatus for it, given that in history they depended on others for sustenance and had to know when a relationship, a family tie, or a promise was about to go sour and take away from them a source of food and security. One of the fun things about experimenting with Game is that you get to realize how transparent you are to women who you approach, when you do this in the wrong mindset. We know this thing has some great predictive value, the mind. How did we find out that life is a 25,000+ Hz wave, and the mind inadequate to properly know it? One accomplishes this by sitting up late at night with models of reality, and with the realities themselves. You then look at whatever reality you are looking at with an eye to self-criticism, and an awareness that you might be unconsciously inserting foreign elements of structure into the thing itself. In other words you look at reality with an eye to properly and deeply know it, and a suspicion that your thoughts and resources are likely to be inadequate. Where did you get this suspicion? Well, I assume you have been trying to model complex experiential realities for some time, and have had the experience of having to rip up your notebooks again and again, and start from scratch. We will return to the example of Game - which has great practical value as an example because, unlike theories about history, about virtue, about the One-Thing-That-Is-Necessary, this one is actually testable. In the case of Game you have both a reality - the woman - and a knowledge system - yourself + the internet. The goal is to use the latter to understand the former enough to experience something pleasant. You can always test your understanding of the mating game, by playing it. Some form of immediate feedback is usually available. So here is the opportunity for sitting up late at night. You can sit up late at night with a hypothesis, and with your memory of the experience that resulted from implementing the hypothesis. “I have to be a jerk” - OK, hypothesis. “Getting kicked out of her apartment for being too forward” - feedback. “I have to be sensitive” - OK, hypothesis. “Gaining trust but never achieving intimacy” - feedback. From here on out I assume you will refine the definitions of either term, and work it out until it becomes an emotional algorithm and a method of self-relation which is uselessly articulated by the mind as “be yourself”. The advice from all the older cohorts, which is absolutely a valid description of what is happening, and which is impossible to absorb when articulated through the mind, it being merely a description of how a way of self-relating *looks* from the inside. You can’t pattern-recognize a method of self-relating that is nonverbal, though, you have to actually do it. Here we have a concrete example about how: 1) Experiential knowledge cannot be effectively approached through thinking, 2) A thought process meant to restore access to ancient paved-over essential functions (mating!) is elided into inarticulate experiential knowledge Why does knowledge of the correct way to mate not crystallize into a structure in the mind which is henceforward easily downloaded to other minds via articles on the internet? Why do all who actually gain the ability to explore these realities, subsequently discard and disavow all mental models? Can it be they are recognizing the supremacy of another organ of perception and knowledge source, other than the mind? Can it be that mating requires more of a man than that he think a certain fixed succession of thoughts? Back to our analogy. The mind samples the signal that is Being at 5,000 Hz, and doesn’t even take exact values. Instead it does a running average for a small time-window, to find an approximate value. It does this for two points, and then it simply generates a line connecting those points - this is the reconstructed signal. What looks like a flat line between minima and maxima is actually, in the original signal, many, many cycles of local minima and maxima which are simply lost. Being, in order to be true, has to be spontaneous, but nothing in the mind can ever fulfil this requirement exactly or consistently. Beneath its thought-blocks and glyphs, which are the recognized patterns in reality, is a true signal which must constantly be betrayed. Looking back at other minds and trying to sample their signal, one falls prey to the difficulties of trying to reconstruct a signal from outside oneself: always a partial victory, and always the reflection of the attempts at sampling one’s own signal. Knowledge can be relatively more or less objective with respect to other knowledge, this is the reason why not all perspectives about Adolf Hitler contain equal truth value or information content. But no knowledge in the mind can be metaphysically objective. This is why our thought-based knowledge may be consistent in its predictive value, yet is not absolute or foundational. In spinning interpretations of history, people are looking for foundational knowledge. A great deal of the Culture of Critique’s thrust was simply this: we can find a level of resolution on which your thought-structures no longer hold. Period. That’s all they did. Our society, not having any sort of awareness about the relative nature of all our reality descriptors, capitulated to them. Had we known that our knowledge of all these thought systems which were overturned - primarily group strategy and group identity - was not foundational, was not absolute, but merely pointed to absolute things (our Being individually, and our collective Being), a better resistance could have been made. One reason why we fell so hard, in other words, is because we believed in the validity of these things so much. As Sam Davidson pointed out, if we were given but a platform to aim their own analytical artillery back at them, their structures would likewise turn to dust - their assertions have no metaphysical objectivity and even fail many simple truth criteria. It was the moment of the Frankfurt School laying down multiple critiques in a society purportedly founded on Principles (i.e. abstract notions which rule over the lives of men), where they were seen to triumph by successfully problematizing a society’s assumed foundational knowledge. This moment was celluloided and replayed again and again in thousands of movies and songs, a whole cultural edifice devoted to a perpetual re-enactment of the laying down of this hand. Comments:2
Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:15 | # Just like you say, “Imagine”, “if” ... “if” ... “I assume”...
I’ve absolutely no idea what this means unless it’s the more simply expressed “Our experiences may receive ambiguous or differing interpretations” which most people have found out by their 12th. birthday, but if we’re talking of spontaneousness (which means ??) nothing could be less spontaneous and laboured than the entire essay. For a start, explain the meaning of “must”. Must = inevitability, as in “You must breathe in order to live” or, Must = absolute neccessity, as in “If you won’t eat you must die” or Must = a qualified and specialised necessity, as in “If you do this you must be punished” Must = very desirable in terms of a hoped-for outcome, as in “You must turn right at the corner or you’ll miss the house” Must = something that you DIDN’T want to happen, as in “What must he do but put his foot RIGHT in it!” Must = a sort of proverbial sense based on continued but perhaps unhappy observation, as in “Men must work, and women must weep” (There are other possible senses, but I’m hungry) Sorry to be super pedantic, but if we’re talking seriously here we MUST define our terms. NOT as inspiring as yesterday’s TODAY programme (Radio 4) on the Tea Party movement ... 3
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:38 | #
Gorboduc, If you want to be entertained, you simply Must see Machete. Meanwhile, you Could admit that PF’s Ontological Oscilloscope is more visually appealing than Turing’s Machine. 4
Posted by Nordlander on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:22 | # That is great for an analysis of mental connections in the mating game - now severely distorted by the massive multicultured propaganda machines, especially films, musics, dance Idols, etc. How about some hard physics? Remember that the OBSERVER is part of the system in the minute The “genius” Einstein (who simply took E=mc2 and much more from others) based his entire system of RELATIVITY (“special” for first, then expandeded to “General” to overcome complicating errors) is really based on the assumption that the speed of light is a constant (in a vacuum, slightly less in air, and markedly less in dense media like glass lenses). He did this based on the famous Michelson-Morley experiment to detect if light speeds vary a little in going different paths in space, plowing through some media of space itself - the “ether.” Based in how fast the earth moves around the sun (about 30 km/sec) he hoped to find one path going a bit fast than the other… around the “official speed” (now set at 299,793.458 km/sec). So secure is this fact that the pysicists have now defined the meter to be 1/299,793,458 the distance travelled by light in a second. But in fact, the MM experiment did NOT show zero effect (of orientation and time on light’s speed). OK, I’ve come up with a new experiemnt to see if we can slighly exceed the speed of light in real photons carrying real information over real physical space (in an array in which the light source and observer are stationary with respect to each other. This is not about “ether,” but if someone can literally inflect a slightly higher speed on some photons, using a setup appearently never tested. But since I’m years away from university now, and my degree (at MIT) was in earth and planetary sciences, not physics, I really have no “credentials” to do the test… and it will take some mechanical setups that require good mechanical engineers plus other stuff I don’t have in my home workbench! If you’d like to hear more, contact me… or I can post the idea page here (as long as I get credit for this experimental idea). I’d say it’s for one of our folks trying to do a thesis! Oh, by the way, the OBERVER (and person who sets it up) are part of the system and I believe that we are actually so different (depending upon lineage and belief/viewpoint) that only certain folks should do this experment - if we want to see a positive result the first time, which will drastically set expectation and what is observed in following tests.) Later the critics will do it. They may or may not get same results. PS: What is email of the person writing this column? 5
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:02 | # Jimmy: I thought this was supposed to be a cultural/political site. Instead it ‘s looking like the sort of stuff I used to pick up from the Church of Scientology premises in Tottenham Court Road in c. 1977. Personally, I believe that the illusion of sensory awarness can be explained by postulating that the phlogiston theory of combustion can be applied to the lost Diaries of Goya, and that the apparent non-presence of the soul is due to the exchange (somewhere in the ultra-violet end of the spectrum) of the properties of anhydrous copper sulphate - admittedly somewhat anomalously - by unsuspected vibratory properties inherent in the Picwickian Theory of Tittlebats, interpreted by means of the unusual sonic phenomena known as the Guns of Barisal. A real vote-winner! I suppose the next stop is a trip forward to the past via the pataphysical and psychoceramic Time Machine of Alfred Jarry: 6
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:58 | # Gorboduc, Yes, for whatever reason, this site attracts some very daring theoretical contributions. It’s quite humbling to a mundane person such as myself. The only hypothesis I have been inspired to ponder is the possibility that you were, once upon a time, Grimoire’s Sunday school teacher. Am I on to anything? 7
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:55 | # Jimmy How much he into you for? 8
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:01 | # Grimoire, You’re comments are hilarious, but Gorboduc and I are trying to have just a tiny bit of fun on this thread without being seen as extensions of alien phenotypes. If you come over here and start triggering primitive brain structures, it could easily be seen as prima facie evidence that the three of us are conspiring to blockade PF’s efforts to guide us toward racial salvation through restoration our ancient, paved-over access to essential mating functions. This is serious business, and I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to end up in single combat with any of those guys from the Godelian thread, so forget the $20. 9
Posted by Sam Davidson on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:32 | #
Much of the discussion on MR is akin to the kind of autistic behavior that beta-male rats engage in during “Phase D” of a behavioral sink. 10
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:39 | # Soren: How can you be so sure? remember Kai Murros (admittedly, one of my King Charles’s Heads) talked a lot of blether - not that long ago - about making the revolution chic, fun, young and sexy, so we’d be forgiven for thinking that the Versace shoe thing was part of it! The Vietnamese/English automatic translation bit also makes it worthy of preservation as an example of the sort of multicult mixed-in NU-SPEAK that we shall all be using before the century’s out. Reminds me of the pic. someone sent me of a Chinese takeaway with a big sign up, ” No we no see you cat You no more ask please” Thanks to Nordlander for elucidating the meaning of the original post. I shall learn the whole thing off by heart and write a few cues on my shirt-cuff for the next time I visit the local bowls club on the pull. Ena Frittleworth is still only 53 and she’ll come running! I took the Michelson-Morley experiment to mean that either: a) as a change through 90 degrees in the direction in which a precisely-measured light wave was travelling through space didn’t result in any really observable intereference patterns the earlier pre-Einstein relativity theory was wrong, or b) that the Earth is stationary in a geocentric system. Actually, in rejecting the geocentric hypothesis, I’m a disciple of Bishop Oresme, who in the 14th century, anticipated the more famed Copernicus, the dedication of whose famous treatise was accepted without demure by Pope Paul III. Nine successive Popes remained unperturbed by Copernicus’s theory. Arnold Lunn pointed out that when the Protestant astronomer Kepler espoused Copernican ideas, the University of Tubingen censured him severely, and he took refuge with the Jesuits, “who welcomed him warmly.” Pity. I rather liked the ETHER theory. A great deal of popular discourse during my childhood was based on it: “The wireless operator on the Titanic sent the message for help out into the eternal ether…” and some surprisingly hard-headed materialist scientists, not given any more to Greek elemental theories than to notions about the Four Temperaments, espoused it. Might get La Fittleworth interested in that too ... 11
Posted by Sam Davidson on Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:26 | # In retrospect my first comment was a bit too harsh on MR. Sorry. 12
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:13 | # PF,
Maybe the process is cyclical, and today’s dominant reality models are gradually becoming tomorrow’s artillery platforms, in the same way that your essay reveals the analytical means of its perpetual deconstruction. 13
Posted by PF on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:29 | # Jimmy wrote:
I think so too, Jimmy. You must be noticing this as well - how the ideas which are the target of enforced respect and solemnity, also gather to themselves all the forces of subversive critique. I imagine that you too like to poke fun at things when people abjure (?) you to be absolutely serious about them. 14
Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:43 | # PF, I think the common thread between your last two entries is that we have natural limitations that prevent us from fully knowing (and/or experiencing) reality and that we cannot hope to give an account of reality without injecting our own distortions into that account. In other words, since we cannot struggle out of our own personality when we try give an account of reality we will inject distortions into our account that come from our personality (e.g. the scholar cannot completely struggle out of himself before he goes about crafting his scholarship). Provided this characterization is correct then I would respond by saying that our Western tradition has developed epistemological tools that were designed to minimize these distortions of personality in the pursuit of acquiring propositional knowledge. For example, in the analytical world of logic and maths propositional knowledge is obtained from a common set of principles and rules of deduction, and in the world of empirical investigation we’ve developed a scientific method that demands reproducibility of its experimental results before a thesis becomes a theorem. In both cases, independent verification is possible and is indeed necessary before a new piece of propositional knowledge is admitted to the mainstream, thus minimizing the distortions that come from a single personality. Furthermore, we’ve also developed philosophical tools of deductive argument that allow us to carefully organize and separate the propositional knowledge that we’ve acquired either analytically or empirically (and can be independently verified) from the propositional knowledge that we can only metaphysically intuit. By separating the latter from the former this style of argument enables the reader to accurately identify those statements that need an objective defense - those that come from metaphysical intuition - for they are the most likely sources of individual distortion. This is the style of argument that I’ve been using thus far in my ontology of mind series. Unfortunately, these tools do have their limitations and I think those limitations can be most clearly seen in the problem of constructing forensic knowledge (i.e. interpreting history). The problem is that whatever our crime scene happens to be it does not usually lend itself to purely analytical considerations nor can it be independently replicated by other investigators nor can it be understood in terms of basic metaphysical facts that most people share. The crime scene is usually a mess and it is the job of an investigator to objectively assess the facts of the crime scene and try to reconstruct a story that fits those facts. Of course, now we are talking about a task where the potential for distortions of personality not only abound but are amplified. Hence the distortions in the work of Nietzsche, Marx, etc. 15
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:45 | # PF and Notus, I mostly understand what is being discussed here, but I don’t like it. I don’t like it, because, unless I’m missing something, it is incapable of leading to any particular course of action. Meanwhile, less honest groups of people seem to be susceptible to galvanization by inferior ideas. I seem to understand that we are undergoing Death by Understanding. 16
Posted by PF on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:21 | # Jimmy wrote:
Do you think we, or white people generally, have too much Understanding? 17
Posted by PF on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:30 | # Notus wrote:
Agree with!
Yes!
What we are really talking about, is that we don’t know who/what we are. I think that is the one fact we are struggling to interface with. Germs that cause cow pox, bacteria in a dish, numbers in a pattern, is all more easily knowable than the knower himself. 18
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:28 | # PF wrote:
We need to be clear about the value of understanding. If we measure its value in terms of survival, the answer to your question may be “yes”. This is made more clear if we tweak the syntax of your question: Do you think we, or white people generally ARE too understanding? But regardless of the race of a thinker, the closer a man moves to realizing, (or believing) that everything he knows, or ever will know, can only be a digital metaphor of the Absolute Analog, the farther away he gets from the type of world view that might precipitate the ultimatums of revolutionary behavior, which would seem to require the sacrifice of his Absolute body to his relative mind, or his Being to his knowing. Rather than inferring “we” to mean “white people” in general, its might have been more accurate for me to have said “we potential revolutionaries”. 19
Posted by PF on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:54 | # Jimmy,
So what you are saying is that I, and anyone who reads and understands this, is less likely to offer the sacrifice of his body that is required by the ultimatums of revolutionary behavior? Interesting. We should have a talk about models of how revolutions work. My model doesnt include self-sacrifice or martyrdom as being a highly valued component. Perhaps it is a bad model. 20
Posted by JImmy Marr on Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:54 | #
Yes. I think that is essentially what I said, but maybe I’ll try to say more. As a result of reading your essay and the subsequent commentary I have begun to speculate that understanding and being may be alternating, complimentary modes of identity. Tic, tok. Tic, tok. It is nonsensical for being to risk itself for the appeasement of understanding except in the case where understanding indicates the impending cessation of being.
The fact that you’re alive attests to the model’s utility. 21
Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:11 | # PF,
Yes, I would say that it is so difficult because we experience the self as a crime scene in the most subjective terms possible. We have experiences and memories but what do they all add up to? The task of reconstructing our own mind’s development (and all minds by generality) on its own terms is forensic in nature, which is what I believe Heidegger was trying to do in his account of the self (or Dasein). That said, I believe that there are certain aspects of the mind’s ontology that can be approached propositionally so long as a dollop of metaphysics is granted along the way, though these would almost certainly fall far short of a complete account. 22
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:50 | # Notus Wind wrote:
When this type of inverted being/knowing becomes dominant in a civilization, the selective pressures governing the survival value of critical thinking also become inverted, and favor the emergence of willful opacity. As an example of this, we can look at the widely held interpretation of the historical crime scene of the twentieth century. As far as I can tell, the absence of forensic evidence logically demands the dismissal of allegations of mass exterminations by gas chambers and complete consumption of millions of cadavers by incineration, for which there was inadequate fuel. It simply couldn’t have happened. My only explanation for the ability of such a ridiculous myth to so completely and thoroughly grip the collective imagination of European mankind is that it required two thousand years of evolutionary conditioning under Christianity to usher in the disastrous disastrous reign of gullibility. To me, this is the real danger of Christianity. Not its universalism. The children of those who flourished by believing the Holohoax, will have no trouble believing that diversity is their strength. But will they flourish? 23
Posted by Notus Wind on Mon, 13 Sep 2010 04:43 | # Jimmy, I like how you’re taking these concepts and applying them to your own thinking. That’s good!
My own preferred explanation is to blame certain ideas that came out of the Enlightenment, like natural rights and equality. The correlation between people who align themselves with the Left and people who align themselves with certain Enlightenment ideals is too high to ignore. Post a comment:
Next entry: Music, freedom, revolution
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:53 | #
Sixth sentence typo: