This is a thought in infancy. I was watching television the other night and this thought kept pulling at me. The screen is viewed as single dimensional. I began reflecting on how much of real life we view as single dimensional. We all do it. Much of the time when we should be trying to see the depth we just skim over the picture with our eyes. The details are in the layers. Almost all situations are fluid, ever changing, always presenting a different picture. This is why our perceptions are always in flux. This is why the walls of our prison are not static. For every detail we actually do perceive, and for every detail we fail to perceive, something is altered whether we are are aware of it or not.
Every time we 'see' something that awakens a new idea, it also underscores the fact that we are only skimming the surfaces of possibilities. How many are undetected? How many are so obvious and missed that when we finally do see them it is literally a blood rush to the brain, and often many doors open simultaneously. When this happens does our cell expand, shrink, or is it just altered? Or is it possible for all three contradicting terms to happen at the same time? Quantum mechanics would suggest it is indeed possible for all to occur at the same time. See? Another conundrum. Another illustration of taking the time to peel the 'visual' layers away and see the full depth of the picture. Or is this yet another illusion?
Thought should be done in the Free Radical style when possible. No preconceived ideas, no restrictions based on teachings. And I suppose this is the real challenge. Fiction writers have a leg up on us in this. Remember, Buck Rogers was once considered silly fantasy. Once. When I was a child it was a joke that a man was going to walk on the moon. While 1984 was prophetic in actuality, it was intended as fictional warning. What this all proves to me is that if we can imagine it, we can do it. The one million dollar question is what SHOULD we be imagining? What kind of Free Radical thoughts should we be allowing to tear through the conditioned mass we call a brain? How can we develop the ability to let our fettered minds go free? How do we train our thoughts to be unfettered? Could we stand the consequences of such a thing? Would we prove ourselves right or wrong? Or would we realize that none of it matters? It has been proven that reality is fleeting and conceptions have to be changed as knowledge is gained. I wonder what reality this thought process would produce. It seems it is worth a shot, what do you think?
[pedantic]
The TV screen is more two-dimensional than one.
[/pedantic]
Other than that, I like where you're going with this.
I'd like to see more about the constantly shifting walls based on what we're seeing, and what we ignore.
Also, before you get in too deep with the quantum physics, remember that this is all metaphor. Anything is possible, you don't necessarily have to go looking for real-world confirmations.
Creative think tanks usually encourage wild "buck rogers" style ideas. Even if they're not practical themselves, they point in a direction we'd like to be moving.
This is good stuff - can you expand a bit on the "Free Radical" style?
Thanks guys, I will work on this in a bit. LMNO I wasn't about to go too deep into the quantum sciences, that would just detract, and you're right about the screen being 2 dimensional, I was just rushing to get the idea down before it slipped away. And expanding on the ever shifting walls is perfect.
Professor, I will also try to expand on the 'Free Radical' thought process. The way I want to describe it is a thought that has no anchor, no grounded conceptual point of origination, thus allowing the thought the freedom to be open to any and all alterations, without a clearly defined point of conclusion.
Any ideas as to defining any of this is welcome, if you think it's worth it, it can become a community project.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2007, 05:01:25 PM
Professor, I will also try to expand on the 'Free Radical' thought process. The way I want to describe it is a thought that has no anchor, no grounded conceptual point of origination, thus allowing the thought the freedom to be open to any and all alterations, without a clearly defined point of conclusion.
Tossing in my two cents... I think it would be better to think of the 'free radical' as having no set destination, and no limits on the directions it can go. Simply by existing, it has some conceptual point of origin. However, don't limit where it can go--think of the 'free radical' as a seed, maybe, from which a plurality of different viewpoints can grow. I agree with the idea of it being open to any and all alteration & without a clearly defined point of conclusion. I think that's some good stuff. But rather than thinking of it as being without a point of origination, think of it as a point of potential origination for an infinite number of potentials.
Did that make sense? I am not always good at expressing ideas.
I like what you've got going here.
Bad wording possibly on my end, by no point of origination, I meant not coming from known/accepted/previously beaten down paths. Most thinking is influenced by what we already know. My definition of 'Free radical' thinking would be just the opposite. And yes, by nature it would be open to a multiplicity of opening directions.
Metaphor stretching: In biology, sometimes a "free radical" can cause cancer.
Discuss.
Quote from: Hawk on June 12, 2007, 05:13:15 PM
Bad wording possibly on my end, by no point of origination, I meant not coming from known/accepted/previously beaten down paths. Most thinking is influenced by what we already know. My definition of 'Free radical' thinking would be just the opposite. And yes, by nature it would be open to a multiplicity of opening directions.
Cool. That sounds good to me. I just like to poke at things even when I suspect that what I'm getting at is what you were getting at, we can never be sure where these things will go.
So again, I like what you've got going here.
Quote from: LMNO on June 12, 2007, 05:15:23 PM
Metaphor stretching: In biology, sometimes a "free radical" can cause cancer.
Discuss.
Cancer is just a process whereby a cell, for whatever reason, fails to replicate its information properly, causing a mutation.
Do you really want to propagate society, or do you want to encourage mutations, even at the risk of destroying the societal superstructure?
Quote from: LMNO on June 12, 2007, 05:15:23 PM
Metaphor stretching: In biology, sometimes a "free radical" can cause cancer.
Discuss.
True, but cancer already exists, in society as well as in the body. But I will agree not all free radicals are going to be good, just as all are not bad. Splitting atoms turned out to be a really bad idea, ask Japan.
Quote from: Cain on June 12, 2007, 05:20:32 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 12, 2007, 05:15:23 PM
Metaphor stretching: In biology, sometimes a "free radical" can cause cancer.
Discuss.
Cancer is just a process whereby a cell, for whatever reason, fails to replicate its information properly, causing a mutation.
Do you really want to propagate society, or do you want to encourage mutations, even at the risk of destroying the societal superstructure?
:mittens:
Indeed!
Actually, I worded that somewhat callously, given LMNO's situation.
Better way:
Cancer is a cell which is considered sick, because it interferes with a healthy body.
But what if the body is already dying from other problems, in the first place? Cancerous cells are mutations, and while all cancers are mutations, the opposite is not true. A mutant cell may benefit the body. It may only stave off the process of dying, or it may actually help heal the body and make it work in better ways.
Thats a far better analogy, I feel, especially because it takes into account that some mutants may accidentally help improve an evil system.
Quote from: Cain on June 12, 2007, 05:54:14 PM
Actually, I worded that somewhat callously, given LMNO's situation.
I forgot about LMNO's situation :oops:
I still like your point, though.
Quote
Do you really want to propagate society, or do you want to encourage mutations, even at the risk of destroying the societal superstructure?
Damn fine line there. I'm making note of it.
Don't worry about my situation.
My dad has superpowers.
He can kill a man just by standing next to him.
LMNO
-imagine the playground arguments with that one.
:mittens:
I still feel the second one is better, however. Analogy is closer, and its more subtle (because a mutation can help prolong the sickness, IOW be co-opted).
For example, in the 60's the Weathermen wanted to bring down the State. But they grew into such a symbol, one could argue the State benefitted by being able to point to a group and generate the proper amount of Fear in the masses.
LMNO
-has a feeling he might be wrong about that, but fuck it.
Something like that, yeah.
I was personally thinking Marx. He thought capitalist society was heading for a revolution if it didn't rerform, and wanted one. But reading his writings gave clues as to what the industry leaders could do to retain control and long terms profits, by indulging in minor reform.
I think 3D might even be too constricting...in order to plough through layers, you need the time module as well...place things in their order so you can weed out and separate what's what and where and when it went to. It's not enough to just see the layers but to also place them within an extra dimension, that of time.
Maybe this ties into the whole: he who doesn't learn history is doomed to repeat it...I don't know. But somehow the 3d dimension is still too limiting.
This is just my initial thoughts here.
Quote from: Jenne on June 12, 2007, 06:51:37 PM
I think 3D might even be too constricting...in order to plough through layers, you need the time module as well...place things in their order so you can weed out and separate what's what and where and when it went to. It's not enough to just see the layers but to also place them within an extra dimension, that of time.
Maybe this ties into the whole: he who doesn't learn history is doomed to repeat it...I don't know. But somehow the 3d dimension is still too limiting.
This is just my initial thoughts here.
A 'Free Radical' thought there.
Ah, and Free Radical...I think that particular phrase has much potential...even though I personally tend to think our thoughts are always anchored somewhere...they really have no choice but to have some sort of weight anchoring them down otherwise they pertain to not much at all, to be quite honest.
And that is the trick, to break away from the ingrained.
Quote from: Jenne on June 12, 2007, 07:05:57 PM
Ah, and Free Radical...I think that particular phrase has much potential...even though I personally tend to think our thoughts are always anchored somewhere...they really have no choice but to have some sort of weight anchoring them down otherwise they pertain to not much at all, to be quite honest.
Well it's true that our thoughts will always be weighed down somewhere/anchored by something. It's part of the cultural and personal baggage we all carry.
However, we can make leaps and bounds in overcoming these weights by keeping them in the back of our mind so that when we approach any situation we are remembering the filter of bias that we're viewing it through. We can't necessarily detach ourselves from our biases, but by being conscious of them, we can seek to minimize how much we are affected by them.
It's nothing if not a challenge to try to put things into place in one's own worldview without then LIMITING them to said worldview.
Ha, holy shit. I just looked up free radicals in wiki. Interesting stuff. I learned about chemistry so long ago...I needed a brush-up.
So the molecular, chemical free radicals are subject to chemical processes and combustion because of their highly reactive nature. That is very usable as an attribute in the BIP.
Also, the biological aspect is also interesting: radicals are necessary to kill bacteria, by using our granucellular neutrophils (this, by the way, is the thing my husband's blood has been lacking this whole time, the ability to destroy bacteria through the use of neutrophils--he just didn't have many left over from the auto-immune process his body decided to "freely" engage in).
The above biological process reminds me of when you have the sludge of society's impingements upon your freedoms, your idiosyncracies...even online communities ilke this one. Engaging your immune system's responses to these things can mean destroying the bit of thinking you have that prevents you from unenslaved thinking/thought processes.
Of course, too much of this can cause a cancer--a mutation that makes you go the OTHER way...because even though too much of a good thing is better than not enough, it's still, welll, too much.
i posted essencially the same response to the EB&G thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radical
electron transport chain.
[formerly had a snippet-snippet]
damn you jenne. i was just gunna post that. instead...
the images of a molecule w/ a free-radical are neat, too...they inspire
scenes of a jail break.
Quote from: Darth Cupcake on June 12, 2007, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: Jenne on June 12, 2007, 07:05:57 PM
Ah, and Free Radical...I think that particular phrase has much potential...even though I personally tend to think our thoughts are always anchored somewhere...they really have no choice but to have some sort of weight anchoring them down otherwise they pertain to not much at all, to be quite honest.
Well it's true that our thoughts will always be weighed down somewhere/anchored by something. It's part of the cultural and personal baggage we all carry.
However, we can make leaps and bounds in overcoming these weights by keeping them in the back of our mind so that when we approach any situation we are remembering the filter of bias that we're viewing it through. We can't necessarily detach ourselves from our biases, but by being conscious of them, we can seek to minimize how much we are affected by them.
It's nothing if not a challenge to try to put things into place in one's own worldview without then LIMITING them to said worldview.
There's limits, and then there's anchors...and I doubt you can be wholly free of them and still exist within your current paradigm. The acceptance of this and seeing where true weightlessness would lead you is to me another removal of one of those bars.
Again, think of the mutation concept as I defined it above. How much use is a Ted Kazinksy vs. those fucks who got arrested for their Cartoon Network prank on Boston last year?
Quote from: Prater Festwo on June 12, 2007, 07:17:50 PM
i posted essencially the same response to the EB&G thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radical
electron transport chain.
[formerly had a snippet-snippet]
damn you jenne. i was just gunna post that. instead...
the images of a molecule w/ a free-radical are neat, too...they inspire
scenes of a jail break.
:lol: Well, I'd say I'm sorry...but I wasn't practicing on my crystal ball atm. ;)
By the way: "Free Radical Thought" can be subject to a better chemical process than just simple reactionary or combustionary responses, by the way. And, in fact, an organized effort like the BIP here on PD is a good example of this.
The Free Radical molecule is also able to bond with a lot of different USEFUL molecules making it into something more stable and the conjoined effort of the newer chemical can do great and wonderful things.
that's close enough to an apology
Great foundational work. Now let's expand the thought. To do this:
6. Free Radicals: A Free Radical (named after the chemical term) is that Discordian who constantly shifts from form to form. Note that having a "Phage day" when you are normally a Wilde does not make you a Free Radical...the shift has to be fluid, constant. The greatest Discordian Saints, and the vilest rogue Discordians, are usually Free Radicals.
Also as a human condition review history. The people who have wrought great change, the ones outside the lines who have opened an entire new chain of thought or action, ie; MLK. People willing to act on thoughts and accept the consequences of such action.
Sometimes, however, Free Radicals (the molecules) have NO CHOICE but to adopt a new chemical form when put next to certain other elements. They are set up from the beginning with the structure they already have.
...any thoughts on THAT?
Natural ebb and flow. That is the ideal model.
Also, if said asshat, or Discordian Saint rather, has a "natural" fluidity...what if it is truly the result of natural disaster?
Doesn't that mean it has less to do with said person and more to do with the natural order of chaos itself? If there IS such a thing?
Interesting side line. Instead of saying the person is a result of a natural disaster, say instead the natural disaster is the result of the free radical. As far as it having less to do with the person and more to do with the natural order of chaos (interesting phrase there) we have some control (weak terminology) over how we allow ourselves to act and think. And the intent of all of this is the 'Free Radical' thinking, and how to make it a habit. Without allowing it to become a rote habit.
sounds like the basics of chaosophy so far, with chemist terms.
what's the target audience for this? is free-radical indended for
"us" or for "them"? is it meant as a reminder to the people who are
working on this project, or is it intended for the people we are
trying to 'reach around' to?
I think it's for us, if we can achieve this kind of thought then our possibilities expand expotentially. The BIP has shown us we are our own prisoners, and the general thinking is shown correctly that there is no escape. Have you ever secretly wondered if some of the clinically insane really don't have the right idea? And again, the idea is still in the formation stage, that's why I am seeking feedback. There is in the back of my mind a niggling little itch that this could open previously closed doors. If we as a group become stale our effectiveness is essentially over.
Or this could simply be the ramblings of a madman who isn't aware he is mad yet.
But in all honesty deep inside I feel there are some things that are going to come from this if we all poke at it long enough. This is the brightest bunch of people in such a small and tight group, and often we act as a think tank. What I guess I am really proposing is an entire new way of thinking that will flood us all with new ideas and directions. Don't get me wrong, it's not about reinventing the wheel, but deciding if the wheel is even necessary.
Rambling = thinking out loud as I go.
Quote from: Jenne on June 12, 2007, 07:15:32 PM
Ha, holy shit. I just looked up free radicals in wiki. Interesting stuff. I learned about chemistry so long ago...I needed a brush-up.
So the molecular, chemical free radicals are subject to chemical processes and combustion because of their highly reactive nature. That is very usable as an attribute in the BIP.
Also, the biological aspect is also interesting: radicals are necessary to kill bacteria, by using our granucellular neutrophils (this, by the way, is the thing my husband's blood has been lacking this whole time, the ability to destroy bacteria through the use of neutrophils--he just didn't have many left over from the auto-immune process his body decided to "freely" engage in).
The above biological process reminds me of when you have the sludge of society's impingements upon your freedoms, your idiosyncracies...even online communities ilke this one. Engaging your immune system's responses to these things can mean destroying the bit of thinking you have that prevents you from unenslaved thinking/thought processes.
Of course, too much of this can cause a cancer--a mutation that makes you go the OTHER way...because even though too much of a good thing is better than not enough, it's still, welll, too much.
They're useful molecules, indeed important, but there are seldom too few of them. High energy molecules tend to do havoc upon biological systems, the very reason why neutrophiles are so effective in your immune system. In photosynthesis, photons from sunlight energize electrons and are then held in carbohydrates for use by the rest of the plant. In metabolism, it works backwards, the electron is traded from Glucose and other metabolites to create ATP, and then the still excited electron is placed on a water molecule. During the whole process the electron is not allowed to be let loose, because of the damage that high energy particles can do. A free radical is just a molecule that has one of those high energy electrons, and it too can screw with other molecules if its not controlled. Thus, moderation is good, for fighting infection, for energy, and such, but lots are gonna change the shape of proteins, DNA and other cell structures. True, the body has repair mechanisms to combat such actions, but it can be difficult to keep up. Thus, over time, shit happens, we age, become cancerous, and otherwise. Radiation is just high energy particles, same idea.
I'm pretty sure thats how everything is going on.
A few thoughts on this that I've mulled over for awhile, much inspired by prev. posts:
-In any system (social, chemical, governmental), you can predict the result of a reaction if you are aware of, and can predict all the factors affecting it. (ie: putting an ice cube tray full of water in the freezer.)
-With systems of greater complexity, prediction takes greater ammounts of precision and energy to predict and comprehend. Complexity and size of the system will also allow the mintuest factor to have a greater effect. (ie: You don't know the freezer was unplugged by your roomate.)
-Some factors will never be observable, or efficient to observe. So, a certain inexactitude must be accepted. (ie: you can't watch your roomate all the time, jsut for the sake of ice cubes.)
-Understanding and developing of any system can be developed both by methodical process and study of the unexpected / unknowable. Both can reveal valid points. (ie: Scientific discoveries by accidents in the past.)
This could show us that there are several ways to gain insight on any situation, (recognizing patterns / thoughts / etc.) that keep you imprisoned), as well as accepting a certain amount of inexactitude (risk, chaos?, etc).
It's been a pretty rough couple of weeks. Today I admitted to myself I have a drinking problem. As soon as my head clears, maybe a couple of days, I will try to organize this into a workable model. Sorry for the delay.
what problem do you have with drinking?
Quote from: Hawk on June 27, 2007, 07:56:22 PM
It's been a pretty rough couple of weeks. Today I admitted to myself I have a drinking problem. As soon as my head clears, maybe a couple of days, I will try to organize this into a workable model. Sorry for the delay.
If you have a "problem" with drinking, it may be because you're trying to shut something down with it.
There are a lot of people who do things to themselves to shut down what is perceived by society to be "wrong." There is nothing *wrong* with you. There is no reason to shut it up.
Or there is, and they have hospitals for that sort of thing where Punch and Judy will try to help you.
The hospital is a better choice than the bottle in that case, IMHO.
I like your bit (the original post), but it strikes me as a whole lot of circular semantics. You need to tighten it up a bit. If you are going to use a metaphor of chemistry ("Free radical") then it might be best to stick to chemistry as the consistent metaphor. If you want the metaphor to be all over the place, it is best to *choose* to be all over the place.
This seems more random, perhaps I am mistaken.
I love the bit about television. We are constantly looking "into" a two-dimensional pane. That's a paradox and an illusion. It's a great metaphor for real life, where we "see" three dimensions, but are looking into something much greater.
N00b out.
Quote from: Prater Festwo on June 27, 2007, 09:07:54 PM
what problem do you have with drinking?
I have an incurable disease that the pain of which is compared to the final stages of a cancer patient, and I drink to help bury it.
Quote from: Hawk on June 28, 2007, 05:10:59 AM
Quote from: Prater Festwo on June 27, 2007, 09:07:54 PM
what problem do you have with drinking?
I have an incurable disease that the pain of which is compared to the final stages of a cancer patient, and I drink to help bury it.
Then I think drinking is not your problem. There's no shame in self-medication.
I think Hawk is doing the right thing, not knowing of the circumstances.
A problem is STILL a problem if you deem it so.
If he thinks he has a problem, he should get it sorted, by any and all means, if he so wishes.
Good luck dude.
I don't think he needs luck, but it will help.
best wishes to you dude.
Thanks. I am cutting down from a half gallon of straight whiskey every 2 or 3 days. And I never drink during working hours. So I'm probably not an alcoholic, but it isn't far from it either. The bad thing about it all is the shakes and disoriented feeling every morning. Heh, and my disease is Interstitial Cystitis, a bladder disease. Fucking brilliant.
I agree with what Payne said.
There's a difference between self-medicating and self-over-medicating. There can be too much of a good thing at which point it becomes a bad thing.
I feel for you, Hawk. The fact that you can see that you're on the borderline of a mess and you're pulling yourself away says something very good for you. I've been in shitty places like that and I know how hard it can be. I hope you have a good support network. If nothing else, you know us jerks here on the intertubes are capable of being almost decent individuals now and again when needed. :D
I don't really know anything about Interstitial Cystitis, but I DO know about how much any disease involving the bladder sucks worse than fifteen black holes. I'm sorry.
OKAY QUICK SOMEONE PLZ TO BE BRINGING LULZ I AM FEELING TOO SERIOUS AND KINDLY NOW
Bumped. Drinking issue resolved.
I still want to pursue this.
So what are the impediments to the proposed Free Radical Thought process?
Obviously thoughts follow patterns in most cases. Is the pattern random or a microcosm of the BIP in our heads? For the sake of this discussion I will say the latter. Based on this then is it fear of the unknown or just another symptom of being in a rut? Both seem to fit. Fear can be overcome, but can we get enough speed built up to climb out of the rut? Can we as intelligent individuals actually allow our thoughts to spin completely out of control and take us to the next dimension?
Honestly I believe we can. It may require work like meditation (not in the Zen kind of way) to free ourselves. We are all in our own custom built BIP because it's comfortable. We built it that way. The same goes for our thoughts. I feel three dimensional free radical thinking is a habit that can be developed. The same as the habit we have for our now thought process. In many ways our joke is old and we need some new material. We need to understand the mind of the cabbage, not just make fun of it. Get inside the mind and then figure out how to shock it out of Grayness.
Cross communication with other Discordian sites was a great step in this direction. The boundaries of isolationism were abandoned and some good results are being seen.
What else can we do?
I am not a Zen Master of Free Radical thinking.....yet!