winter-21
20210111_1740

consistent logical system = a set of axioms with no contradictions



20210112_1221

okay great i have just spent over an hour trying to find a website blocker extension that allows me to whitelist, but i did not find any.



20210112_1243

any system or mechanism that attempts to supplant or override the individual's drive for refining their own conception and perception of 'good' is a manifestation that can be defined as evil.



20210113_0905

READING JUNG

'synchronicity'

pg. 32: notes on the passage by albertus magnus on the subject of magic from avicenna's liber sextus naturalium

humans have the power to change things. for example, a woman has the ability to make others subservient or dominant to her by way of seduction in the process of love or lust. or in the process of hate she can rile up the spirit of another which has the power to change how that other acts.

this is not limited to effect over other humans. the state of being that is characterized by powerful emotions such as hate or love - the state of being particularly affected by an emotional state - puts humans in the position to most efficaciously use their power to change the world around them.

if you fall into an emotional state that is in excess, i.e. overflowing with a particular emotion, you will find that you can influence the world around you in a 'magical' way. this statement of magic really seems to mean that when the special moments of human existence occur you will find excess emotional content. if one could ever learn how to influence (within the self) the excesses of emotional content, then one would have a powerful tool which would in turn seem magical and special in comparison to normal human activity. the ancient/medieval focus on magic and alchemy may be as much about being in control of one's own emotional content as it is about transforming iron into gold or other physical miracles. in order to do 'magic' of the physical sort, one has to be able to do this other 'magic' of the inward sort. they are not separate from one another.

the soul appears to be the 'thing' that is riling up the emotional content. and so the 'soul' has some desires that it attempts to will through the riling of emotions. when the soul riles up inspiration it is demanding that the individual who owns the soul must act on that inspiration. what to make of the times when the soul suggests actions (via emotional content) which do not agree with one's imagination of 'good'? i think this is where we have room to analyze that the soul is both the light and the shadow. the development of the light and the shadow within humans is also downwind of neurochemical processes developed by billions of years of evolution. perhaps there exists some true perfection that is only light (no shadow is cast), but to cast light against a being such as a human necessarily creates the shadow that wraps around the emotional mind as a sibling to the light. regardless of whether or not the shadow and the light are primorodial dependent, we have both heaven and hell within us.

perhaps if we were to attempt a new mythology we would need two creation myths. one where the light and the shadow are primordially linked, and one where they are primordially separate. the latter begs the question that if the primordial conception of god is only light (being that there is nothing for the light to cast a shadow against), when is the shadow birthed? or perhaps there is a clear argument that shadow is primordial and we must destroy this notion that the most primordial state of being was only light. maybe math can help. being that the nature of infinity is that it is unreachable (never-ending newnewss), perhaps the shadow is primordially linked to light in that no matter how 'infinite' the light is, there is still more infinity for it to be. the shadow then becomes the incompleteness of the light. the light is casting against something even in this primordial state. it is casting against the very conceptualization that there can be a boundary to itself. since there cannot be a boundary to infinity, light must always forever be thinking of itself as the everything that can be, but since there is not a limit to the everything that can be, light must always grow. because light is ever growing into 'something' (pure potential), the shadow can be defined as this reflected infinity. it is the 'nothing' that the light is growing into. but this 'nothing' itself is infinite. and this 'nothing' itself is a 'something' - namely - the pure potential for light to be.

so we have to know when to listen to these rilings and when to give them a stern talking to. what does it mean that we might have dominion over this 'thing' which effects us beyond our control? 'it' produces the effects such that they combine with our perception, but it does not force us to act. it is suggesting how to act. we get to decide how to act. this means we are responsible for determing which sides of this internal force we are allies with and which sides we must understand but not follow.


pg. 33

jung postulates that there is an image that anticipates ordinary physical processes. and that this anticipatory image is one half of his definition of synchronicity.

this anticipatory image occurs in the unconscious. the anticipatory image, insofar as it is perceived, occurs where the unconscious touches our perception. this means the anticipatory image comes to us in dreams and emotions affected by symbols connected to the unconscious archetypes. the unconscious archetypes must be neuroplastic compression mechanisms that allow for the rapid processing of vast amounts of information from the universe into actionable psychic content.

cogitationes quae sunt a nobis independentes = devices that are independent from us

arnold geulincx claims that these 'devices that are independent from us' are prompted by god and do not spring from our own thinking. i agree that they do not spring from our own thinking. they are certainly independent from us. i do not sure if it is prompted by god, but i don't know what else you would call the thing that is doing it.

jung takes a moment to comment on the difficulty of establish the understanding that empirical evidence for synchronicity is something that is difficult to prove. mankind tends to be prejudice to radical and new ideas and we find ourselves in an age where the thought of the provability of something like synchronicity is assumed impossible. 'we shall be quite certain to find [evidence] where all the authorities have assured us that nothing is to be found'.


pg. 34

jung claims that the greek-trained western mind grasps at details for their own sake, while the chinese practice is to see every detail as part of a whole.

the practice of grasping the total situation


pg. 35

judgement must rely on sensation and intuition. intuition comes from subliminal sensation. intuition is always a gamble - it cannot be so sure of itself.



20210113_1323

i just thought of a computational analogy for our previous conception of light and shadow

think of light as the '0' and shadow as the '1'

light, without the ability to contextualize its extent, isn't anything. it is 0.

shadow is the 1 because it gives to light the quality of having extent.

from the 0 and the 1 every representation can be computed.

from light (radiation of different wavelengths), every image can be cast as long as there is something to cast upon (necessitating shadow).

light casting on nothing is light not casting

computation of only 0's and no 1's is not computation. no discernable difference can be made from one state to another.

also think of 0! = 1

n! essentially means 'how many ways are there of arranging n objects'. 0! = 1 means that there is only 1 way of arranging nothing. but 1! = 1 means there is also only one way of arranging one thing! the arrangement of nothing and one thing amounts to the same potential! they are one in the same. but TOGETHER give us ALL OF REALITY!

if you desire to make the statement 'there are no ways of arranging nothing' consider that the word 'are' implies that 'no ways' IS a way. thereby giving a quality to the state of nothingness. just another nail in the coffin. true nothingness implies the absence of all rules, possibilities, and matter. true nothingness is not a valid state.

perhaps we flip it around and consider the shadow. what if we attempted a mythology where the shadow was primordial without the light. thereby not being a shadow but being darkness -- the absense of light. that seems quite easy to devise. because you could say that the most primordial thing is pure potential itself absent of any other quality or manifestation. a mythology with a lone primordial darkness would represent the manifestation of pure potential that has no way to take advantage of itself. this seems like a way to consider the deep emotional turmoil at the heart of being.

could you then hypothesize that the darkness itself created the light that was then used to cast shadow? in this view primordial darkness and shadow are certainly different phenomena. there does not seem to be a way in which primordial darkness could ever cast light into being. but being is real! we are evidence! light is real! we must not consider scenarios which are impossible to level against the facts.

the logic of this analysis seems to point to the idea that the primordial being is not 'light only' or 'dark only' but is 'light + shadow'. we will have to beat this analysis to death before standing firm in this conclusion.



20210113_1447

MATHEMATICS

zero as the sum of all numbers

i just studied a thought experiment from the book everything forever by gevin giorbran. it is a way of representing numbers so that 0 is not a representation of 'nothingness', but is instead a representation of infinity that it includes all numbers. this can be done by the following process.

define infinity through the process of being the sum of all integers on the number line.

(1+(-1)) + (2+(-2)) + (3 + (-3)) ... = 0

now by definition in this new mathematical imagination 0 equals the sum total of the infinite number line.

let's perform an operation.

0 - (-1) = 1

in this mathematical imagination 1 does not represent a number larger than 0. instead, 1 represents all numbers on the number line with the (-1) having been removed.

similarly we can consider the following operation.

0 - (1) = -1

in this operation (-1) does not equal a number that is less in magnitude than (1). instead it is a number equal in magnitude to that of (1) because it represents all numbers on the number line with (1) having been removed.

accordingly, in this scheme the number 2 would actually represent a magnitude less than that of 1 because it is the removal of a (-2) -- a number of larger magnitude than (1) or (-1) -- from the magnitude of infinity.


this mathematical scheme is interesting because in it we are capable of having a well defined view of infinity, but in doing so we give up the well defined view of the 'nothingness' of zero that is axiomiatically posited by our 'normal' maths.

this is a good exercise in seeing how the changing of axioms allows for different perceptions that were not allowed inside of the previous axioms.



20210115_0759

yesterday i started making a prototype of a visual system for charting how i should be living my life and planning my projects. i will include that prototype here.


20210120_1253

there is something formless yet complete
that existed before heaven and earth.
how still! how empty!
dependent on nothing, unchanging,
all pervading, unfailing.
one may think of it as the mother of all things under heaven.
i do not know its name,
but i call it 'meaning'.
if i had to give it a name, i should call it 'the great'.



20210201_0931

jdsa jekslj

ham is an eatable thing


mcdonalds will buy your tongue
coke says tasting is believing

the temperature on the stove is hot enough
the knife on the board is sharp to touch

plastic forks and styrofoam plates
cinder blocks painted some kind of beige

eat me
meat tea
team me
please please

dish wash slosh slosh

flip flop plip plop

eyyyyyyyyyyyyy

i'm okay.



20210202_1347

day hasn't been that bad yet.

but it also hasn't been effortless.


devil does what devil wants
nicholas cage knows what you thought you were
bulshdifn

vesfdeilfkjskdja;sld kfjdksa

i am not feeling well.

dksadifjennnwnwnwnwnwnekwnf awl lew kjfe i wma eiwnot asdf feling asd wael dsaf w ekn g

i need a break. book time.



20210209_0818

today must be a day of attacking anxiety.

we have to attack the anxiety back to show it that it is going to have to fight to take over my reality.



20210222_1225

NEVER ADD COMPLEXITY WHEN IT IS NOT NEEDED.

it is often a good idea to reduce something to its 'simplest moves' and practice and engrain those moves.



20210308_0826

breathing.

i am conscious.

an attending attentional agent.

i want to continue breathing.

i want the breath of a free soul.


today is looking like a fairly easy day.

i am sleepy. but i want to be awake.

i do not want to be tired all day.


here is a good question to consider today.


'what should i be doing.'

how much agency do we have over our conscious vessel?

free will has to be real from the perspective that it serves a purpose in the collapse of the quantum graph (~~probability map~~) that we experience through the conscious perspective.

if this is all the enumeration of a generative function, then somehow that generative function finds itself implemented in a way that choice and will become a reality. it isn't just an illusion.

interesting how free will and choice can compute in a world without complete awareness. but...... does the world lack complete awareness???? why do i want to even characterize awareness as 'complete'?

if the choice is coming from our conscious experience (perception), and our perception is limited by the information we have to make any choice, then the freedom in our will comes from the fact that we have to be able to act without full understanding.

where are we today?

i think there is going to be some mental suffering today and we just have to be prepared for it.

the 'what to do' is a big issue still.

'what to do' is today's problem.

for now i am going to take a nap.