Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Brotep

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 53
46
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Fractal Cult
« on: October 31, 2010, 03:27:43 pm »
If this is to be taken as reality rather than a way of thinking, it strikes me as sweet, delicious bullshit. The kind you know you should stop eating but you can't.

I think we are only capable of describing models. I don't think anybody is presenting this as a really for real true description of the universe - more of a thought experiment so far.
Okay, just checking. In that case, I really like this. I am in love with metalanguage and metadescriptions that can carry over from one thing to another--in fact, it is the key to the way I learn--synthesizing and analogizing. For a musician, dancer and martial artist, this is pure gold.

Quote
Quote
I have desperately wanted and tried to believe in a Jungian or Campbellian universal motif, but it's seemed wrong from any approach outside wishful thinking. Not only are archetypes ill-defined, they are supposed to be ineffable.

models cannot be true or false, they can only have degrees of usefulness.

While models can and will reshape redistrict experience, I believe we can identify patterns in our experience and thereby construct a true processual understanding of it.

Quote
In this case I do think they are useful in that we can learn something about humanity, and ourselves, by examining the patterns which recur in nearly every culture.
For William Blake via Northrop Frye, humanity is a single being which has fallen and forgotten itself. The highest aim is the remembrance of the identity of the great and primordial man, and to be a visionary who sees the unfallen world of wholeness. But, I'm wandering a bit afield.

Do you see any incompatibility between archetypes and an almost mathematical similarity?


Quote
Quote
For same-level and interlevel pattern similarity, I would use the terms 'tesselation' and 'homology', respectively. Homology is the term we used in History of Chinese Religion class to describe the notion of the link between the microcosm and the macrocosm--e.g., between the health of the emperor and the wellbeing of the state. Tesselation refers to a shape that can fill a space with copies of itself all placed side-by-side. While that in and of itself does not require or directly suggest reproduction, I like the idea that certain shapes create a negative space patterned after themselves.

good notes... I wrote the bullet points in the above post before I saw this.. I think you're onto something with the homology.  This calls for more research on my part.

Tesselation is definitely a nod in the right direction but I think it also implies uniformity, which does not sit well with complexity.

Quote
ahh it turns out tessellation does not imply uniformity.  my bad, I was thinking too hard about those escherian lizards

Even so, perhaps it is better to speak of people, situations, beliefs, things, etc. as having tesselational properties. A particular instantiation of interest is interpersonal dynamics. In a two-person interaction pattern there are two roles. We learn our role by participation, and the other person's role by observation. Obviously you will not become the same person as the other person, but once a pattern is established, we often try to (or inadvertently do, as dynamics function as attractors) recreate said pattern in other interactions. This is how, to use a trite example, abusees can become abusers.

47
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Fractal Cult
« on: October 31, 2010, 02:52:41 pm »
If this is to be taken as reality rather than a way of thinking, it strikes me as sweet, delicious bullshit. The kind you know you should stop eating but you can't.

I have desperately wanted and tried to believe in a Jungian or Campbellian universal motif, but it's seemed wrong from any approach outside wishful thinking. Not only are archetypes ill-defined, they are supposed to be ineffable. However, there is one handling of the monomyth I find immensely satisfying, and that is William Blake's, at least as it is explained by Northrop Frye in Fearful Symmetry.

There is something profoundly appealing about this extreme poly-tiered "as above, so below and a little below that" systematicity, but I wonder what metaphysical assumptions it demands. It allows the feeling that the universe has an order about it that science for all its mechanistic conceptions cannot bestow or recognize, but is that worthwhile in and of itself?

Dingo is right on the money with this...
Probably one of the points that needs clarification is are you trying to say that...

It's useful to think that were exist in these kind of fractals (in the Discordian-Bokonist sense that we can construct and develop our own sense of reality by consciously developing our own beliefs (Probably Cain's Discordianism and Perfect Nihilism is the type of thing i'm getting at.))

OR

We indeed DO live in these kinds of fractals. That there is objective value in examining the reactions of individuals in situations and applying these patterns to countries, in the same way that a scientist can experiment on a mouse to learn about humans.

I will add only that there is value in the ability to draw analogies between processes existing on different levels or in different senses, regardless of the reality or unreality of similarity. I am not prepared to throw down with the metaphysical fractal realist, but having a larger analogical vocabulary is definitely a good thing.



Quote from: Crams
I'm starting to think about fractal cult language and terminology  -- and I'll need some help with this

1-----I need a word which describes a pattern which occurs multiple times at the same level of magnification - such as sarah palin and christina o'donnel.

2-----And I need a word which describes the similarity between a pattern at one level and a pattern at another level - such as the relationship between one's circulatory system and the economy

For same-level and interlevel pattern similarity, I would use the terms 'tesselation' and 'homology', respectively. Homology is the term we used in History of Chinese Religion class to describe the notion of the link between the microcosm and the macrocosm--e.g., between the health of the emperor and the wellbeing of the state. Tesselation refers to a shape that can fill a space with copies of itself all placed side-by-side. While that in and of itself does not require or directly suggest reproduction, I like the idea that certain shapes create a negative space patterned after themselves.


The dance along the artery,
the circulation of the lymph,
are figured in the drift of stars.

--T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

48
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Oh My Godblock
« on: October 29, 2010, 09:54:17 pm »
It's great that it exists, and terrible that people actually want to use it.

49
The Secrets Forum / Re: So I was googling orgasm...
« on: October 27, 2010, 12:03:09 am »
There's a very specific sensation I'm trying to pin down how to generate, which is one of the main motivations for putting all this stuff together in one place. I also just want to know the overall shape of what I've learned, and see whether looking at all of it at once yields any new discoveries.

I will think about making it available if it turns out to be useful.

50
The Secrets Forum / Re: So I was googling orgasm...
« on: October 26, 2010, 06:22:24 am »
What's the back story on why you were googling "orgasm"?


I have begun compiling a handbook of erotic techniques and (relevant) ideas about the nervous system on an experiential level. This is largely through experimentation but I also try to research the subject.  I wanted to see if anything interesting would appear in the search results.

51
The Secrets Forum / So I was googling orgasm...
« on: October 25, 2010, 05:28:28 am »
...when I found THIS

Oh, Tucson.  :lol:

52
Or Kill Me / Re: I hate the entire unviers
« on: October 17, 2010, 08:24:11 pm »
You might have done.  I'd go check.  :lulz:

ETA:  Don't bother.  If you did, they wouldn't have been legible.
:lulz: A chick I knew in college was all "WTF is this shit. You got me worried call me in the morning if you still have my number"

Is she hot?

53
Or Kill Me / Re: I hate the entire unviers
« on: October 17, 2010, 04:44:34 pm »
 :lulz:

54
The Secrets Forum / Re: More OK Cupid fun
« on: October 16, 2010, 11:19:38 pm »
I just troll with my regular account, and if my targets respond favorably I ask them out.

55
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Use of LSD-25 for Computer Programming
« on: October 13, 2010, 06:55:48 am »
Icke maybe out there, (even by Discordian standards) but I think he's probably one of the good guys
What does that mean, exactly? He's not a reptilian?  :lol:

56
Or Kill Me / Re: Listening
« on: October 10, 2010, 08:30:53 pm »
Good stuff. I was in the bluegrass club at school. We had a jam every Saturday.

I call it listening because with albums you can't just sit and hear, it requires participation. One has to change the albums, gently push the arm when it sticks and make sure the albums are clean.

All real listening requires participation.

Even if the participation is just mental.

Exactly. There's a huge difference between getting lulled into a reverie and actively exploring music.

57
Bring and Brag / Re: Gorillas in the Midst
« on: October 10, 2010, 08:28:37 pm »

58
Literate Chaotic / Re: Unofficial What are you Reading Thread?
« on: October 10, 2010, 07:14:34 pm »
Fearful Symmetry - A Study of William Blake, by Northrop Frye

59
Techmology and Scientism / Re: Use of LSD-25 for Computer Programming
« on: October 10, 2010, 07:07:58 pm »
I remember hearing that DNA was conceptually visualised on LSD.

Yes, there was some article about it...The writer claimed he broached the subject with Watson and was told never to bring it up again on pain of death or some such thing.

60
Or Kill Me / Re: Listening
« on: October 10, 2010, 06:02:29 pm »
Good stuff. I was in the bluegrass club at school. We had a jam every Saturday.

I call it listening because with albums you can't just sit and hear, it requires participation. One has to change the albums, gently push the arm when it sticks and make sure the albums are clean.

All real listening requires participation.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 53