09.04.19
Q: A child is riding a tricycle. How is the tricycle moving?
A: The child is moving it.
“Wrong! Define “child”. Use any and all known methods of extrapolating data to describe the sum situation!”
“What? But it’s clear that the child is using pedals attached to the front hub to move the tricycle.”
“False! The tricycle’s momentum and inertia can only be defined in terms of their relation to the sum mechanical force potential of the entity or ‘child’ as the question has framed it. In order to do this, we’ll have to redefine everything down to the elemental parts of what constitutes both the child and the tricycle as well as the context i.e. exterior conditions through which they both exist. You know what? We need a particle accelerator over here. Has anyone got a particle accelerator? Anyone?”
In Einstein’s latter days he embraced the field, the ether, whatever you care to call it. He embraced Tesla’s model because it worked. We all know Einstein. We all know Tesla. We don’t hear much about Marconi, Heaviside, Maxwell, Plank, Faraday, or Steinmetz. We hear virtually nothing of Pythagoras or Bach or any of the minds behind everything we take for granted. We’ve been raised to believe in separateness. We're immediately suspicious of those who mention wholeness. We call them naive or deluded. For most of the 20th Century we’ve called people who dare entertain notions of field properties or ether by all sorts of unflattering names. After all…particle physics gave us really big bombs.
The brightest thinkers of the modern age weren’t materialists or modernists at all. They weren’t nihilists or atheists either. The vast majority, like Tesla were devout in their relationship with what they called “God” and most were religious. They saw no reason to suppose science and religion should be mutually exclusive because, before the so-called modern age, science and religion were looking for the same things: Meaning and causality. The gothic cathedrals of Europe are built with such mathematical and scientific rigor that we are currently unable to replicate them much like many of the pyramidal structures on earth.
Yet, we are outnumbered by loud people who suppose themselves intellectually grounded because they believe in the latest spoon-fed cultural norms. They see themselves as independent, novel thinkers because they’ve rejected what the greatest minds in history literally used to invent the world these post-modernists use every day: A conscious field behind all things.
My generation embraces Darwinism, atheism, communism, socialism, capitalism, basically any “ism” that will make a seemingly complex world more palatable. They reject any appeal to thoughtfulness, to humility, to real knowledge or investigation and normal human curiosity because they’re afraid of being categorized as “abnormal” by other people that spend the vast majority of their lives staring at television screens in their free time, being passively entertained, and in constant need of limbic reinforcement by a myriad of empty distractions. This isn't a judgment. This is a statistic.
The modern man is so utterly sure of himself and his social beliefs. So unwavering in his condemnation of the "other team". So casual in the way he ignores the greater ills of the world in favor of clever diatribes. He is virtually mind-controlled and triggered from every angle like a light-switch with limited functions yet he sees himself as enlightened merely on the grounds that he purports to reject a few notions which he doesn't fully apprehend to begin with, claiming they are “outdated and foolish.”
This is the first century in the history of mankind where majorities of people have lauded, even institutionalized the concept, dare I say the religion of “No Causality”. They like to cite Tesla, having no idea what the man stood for and on whose shoulders with which philosophies he stood, but field theory is returning. It is returning because the detour into particle physics hasn’t resulted in anything but bizarre equations, money pits, and innumerable absurd postulations that begin with ‘What if the universe is actually such and such…”
It is clear the electrical theorists were on track before the Big Detour because their equations worked, whether a single line or thirty-five pages long. They took different dimensions and ideas like counter-space as a given. They used fundamentally-assumed properties that went as far back as Plato (probably further) and built upon them until they could be harnessed into electrical models which became machines and motors which depended on capacitors, grounds, and carefully-worked circuity to perform functions for mankind. Then, New York City was lit up. Then the world. Then we entered an era where we’ve become virtually dependent on technology and scream at boxes when their signals get interrupted. This is not the enlightened man. This is the dead-end of the detour.
The measure of a society’s greatness isn’t its ability to mass-produce and consume. It isn’t its ability to cram information and media down everyone’s throats. It isn’t most of what we claim to require for basic happiness. Ultimately, a society stabilizes and thrives based on its ability to connect with a greater idea or unifying principle. In the west, most formerly-unifying ideas have been replaced by quasi-religious identification with compartmentalized and meaningless activities, most of which are self-aggrandizing. This is actually one of the most reliable hallmarks of a civilization in decline. It will gnash and attempt to expand its influence and empire, but without any unifying groundwork, it will be hollowed out and devoured like so many before it because it no longer stands for anything. It may look like Disneyland on the outside, but the food court hasn’t enough food to sustain you through the long lines. We are now obsessed with a process that amounts to Feeding the Machine.
The field models were irreplaceable. They balanced. They unified. It would be like breathing air your entire life and then suddenly deciding you preferred breathing water because it too, contains oxygen and is easier to see and measure. One idea will work. The other will end your life.
I am not demanding people believe in God. I know the word only conjures images of Hollywood inquisitions, colonialism, and crusades all carried out by a white bearded man on a throne. I am not demanding people believe in Ether. For what we know, it could be a plasmic field with discrete properties and dimensions. It actually matters very little what name you give to the observed causality and deliberate patterning we see replete in biological systems. It matters little that certain institutions have hijacked these words and claimed to speak on their behalf or that other ideas have been given permanent tenure in academia. Both left and right wings of knowledge misunderstand and deliberately misrepresent their acuity here.
An adult human doesn’t need to subscribe to an ‘ism’. An adult human doesn’t need to pick a team or a side. An adult human has the capacity for rational thought, perception, and intuition. An adult human - even a child can (and often do) connect to the divine, but the signal is garbled. The distractions du jour come already clipped to the side of a machine-gun, ready for deployment and if you are an expert at these little distractions…you’ll never see the big picture, never look up at the sky on a clear night and wonder for the sake of wonder. This is a bigger tragedy than all the front pages combined.
Why do I jump from field models to consciousness to current climates? Because they are all interrelated. Because the acceptance of the field model means the acceptance of something greater than us. In the 21st Century we have been sold a series of toxic lies about ourselves and our place in the cosmos. We’ve been fed false narratives. We’ve been given false options. We’ve been told that we’re in the “best times ever” but we’ve also killed more of our fellow humans than ever before. We die from strange diseases that we don’t understand. We waste most of our lives in meaningless modes of behavior to achieve status and security. Gratitude and empathy are often perceived as liabilities. The idea that this amounts to progress is stunning. I would suggest rather, that we are at a crux. We are at the same crux that we always are: Humans with the capacity to choose.
It is not wishing that brought me to field models. It’s merely what the evidence suggests. It’s only in this age where science and spirituality have become so childishly at odds with each other that people feel existentially threatened by one or the other. A conscious man will kill neither in name of science or religion but how apt that leaders use religious tomes to deploy weapons that rely on advanced combustive science. It is not the tenants of one or the other that decide a man’s actions. It is the level of understanding that man has for either which informs him first. An ignorant man will kill over a pair of shoes or a petty insult.
I walked into the living where I was experimenting with running dual audio frequencies yesterday: 432 HZ x PHI in a left-right stereo field. As I walked around I entered certain spots where standing waves and harmonics overlapped and clung together. My body felt abuzz with the resonance. Then I walked a mere foot to the left and encountered spots of quiet coherent phasing where the signal came through unadulterated. I thought on this for awhile. I marked places where similar phasing occurred and found patterns throughout the room, which was afloat in information.
I imagined breaking the scale down to measurable 10’ x 10’ cubes and sampling the information within in each cube, then breaking those cubes down into smaller 10’ x 10’ cubes and sampling the information again. Regardless of where I sampled and no matter how small, the cube would be receiving information from three dimensions: forward/backward, side to side, up/down. What could you ascertain about the nature of the original signal by sampling the smallest quanta of information?
What can you ascertain about the nature of the English language by cutting off the right foot of the letter “R” and putting it under a microscope?
What can you learn about a child’s first experience on a tricycle by measuring the length of his socks?
On the Pacific Crest Trail I found myself wondering about the ways of nature and what language it spoke - that is, what constructs did it fundamentally adhere to? Was it even observable? Was nature so wild? So unadulterated? So mysterious? Or was it so profoundly simple that the modern mind couldn’t resolve anything decent to say about it? The birds just woke up and flew around about like clockwork in the morning air. The bears ambled through fields of blueberries, sniffing here and there. The sun melted the snow on the mountaintops and then it turned into water and ran down the canyons and fed the plants and animals and dormant seeds and everything that needed to be fed. The mountains themselves were made out of ancient seabeds raised thousands of feet into the air to temperatures where snowfall was possible. It just happened. These cycles took millions of years to become stable and they did so without a single rational utterance. I found it miraculous in the literal sense. Everything I depended on for survival occurred because of other cycles far outside of my comprehension level but I was not the right foot of the letter “R”. I, along with everyone and every thing else, was intrinsic to the story.
When I returned I wondered just how we became so terrified of nature; so contrasted in our assumptions and beliefs. It was almost as if we had an antagonizing relationship with it; like a teenager with mommy issues; a fundamental mistrust. Well, Jung would have something to say about that, but we repeatedly encountered the idea that we’d been ‘running away’ from something. Numerous people said “Well, I would if I could”, ergo: “I live in the real world with grownup responsibilities. Walking from Mexico to Canada would be a clear violation of the quiet agreements I have with some vaguely established rules.” We never told people to walk the trail. I couldn’t care less. The less the better - but they often felt obliged to offer their two cents. The theme of running away from something came up again when we began talking seriously about the CDT, so I paused as I always do, and let it percolate.
Then I thought hey, wait a minute: We’ve lived on an ever-expanding grid in the midst of a telecommunications, career-driven, war-oriented, techno-fetish soup for less than 100 years out of 14,000+ known years of civilization. There’s nothing remotely ‘normal’ about it and the idea of running away? What do you think humanity has been doing en masse since the industrial revolution? We hide out in pre-fab chemically-treated right-angled cubes and store disposable petroleum byproducts in them. The best we’ve come up with after all this innovation and progress is a marginal increase in life-expectancy that is still debatable from region to region vs quality of life etc, so who’s running away from what?
“Well, why don’t you go live in the woods forever then?” I’ve certainly considered that option, but I came back with a different perspective: I accept cities for what they are: Mass convenience; aspects of which I rather enjoy from time to time. Society ultimately functions for the convenience of people. It doesn’t require your life-long endorsement or worship.
When I use running water and flip light switches I compare it to the reality of the trail i.e. waiting for streams and springs and moving about when the sun allowed me to. When I watch a movie I tend to be more aware of how I’m spending my time and energy. It’s easy for people to fling ideas about, but it’s difficult for Hanne and I to somehow un-experience the subtle lessons that occurred from living in nature for six months.
It’s all brought me back to the particulars of field theory because I’m interested in natural systems. I don’t care what the latest greatest shiniest loudest most clever thing is. I want to know how fundamental systems work because I’d rather live in accordance with those principles (rationally observed and deducted) than whimsically riding the train of popular opinion. It’s just not sustainable and I’d hate to pass it down to the next generation on accident. I suppose it ultimately depends on whether life is just ‘whatever’ or actually sacred. I’ll bet on the latter, because I believe we are all that kid on the tricycle.
A: The child is moving it.
“Wrong! Define “child”. Use any and all known methods of extrapolating data to describe the sum situation!”
“What? But it’s clear that the child is using pedals attached to the front hub to move the tricycle.”
“False! The tricycle’s momentum and inertia can only be defined in terms of their relation to the sum mechanical force potential of the entity or ‘child’ as the question has framed it. In order to do this, we’ll have to redefine everything down to the elemental parts of what constitutes both the child and the tricycle as well as the context i.e. exterior conditions through which they both exist. You know what? We need a particle accelerator over here. Has anyone got a particle accelerator? Anyone?”
In Einstein’s latter days he embraced the field, the ether, whatever you care to call it. He embraced Tesla’s model because it worked. We all know Einstein. We all know Tesla. We don’t hear much about Marconi, Heaviside, Maxwell, Plank, Faraday, or Steinmetz. We hear virtually nothing of Pythagoras or Bach or any of the minds behind everything we take for granted. We’ve been raised to believe in separateness. We're immediately suspicious of those who mention wholeness. We call them naive or deluded. For most of the 20th Century we’ve called people who dare entertain notions of field properties or ether by all sorts of unflattering names. After all…particle physics gave us really big bombs.
The brightest thinkers of the modern age weren’t materialists or modernists at all. They weren’t nihilists or atheists either. The vast majority, like Tesla were devout in their relationship with what they called “God” and most were religious. They saw no reason to suppose science and religion should be mutually exclusive because, before the so-called modern age, science and religion were looking for the same things: Meaning and causality. The gothic cathedrals of Europe are built with such mathematical and scientific rigor that we are currently unable to replicate them much like many of the pyramidal structures on earth.
Yet, we are outnumbered by loud people who suppose themselves intellectually grounded because they believe in the latest spoon-fed cultural norms. They see themselves as independent, novel thinkers because they’ve rejected what the greatest minds in history literally used to invent the world these post-modernists use every day: A conscious field behind all things.
My generation embraces Darwinism, atheism, communism, socialism, capitalism, basically any “ism” that will make a seemingly complex world more palatable. They reject any appeal to thoughtfulness, to humility, to real knowledge or investigation and normal human curiosity because they’re afraid of being categorized as “abnormal” by other people that spend the vast majority of their lives staring at television screens in their free time, being passively entertained, and in constant need of limbic reinforcement by a myriad of empty distractions. This isn't a judgment. This is a statistic.
The modern man is so utterly sure of himself and his social beliefs. So unwavering in his condemnation of the "other team". So casual in the way he ignores the greater ills of the world in favor of clever diatribes. He is virtually mind-controlled and triggered from every angle like a light-switch with limited functions yet he sees himself as enlightened merely on the grounds that he purports to reject a few notions which he doesn't fully apprehend to begin with, claiming they are “outdated and foolish.”
This is the first century in the history of mankind where majorities of people have lauded, even institutionalized the concept, dare I say the religion of “No Causality”. They like to cite Tesla, having no idea what the man stood for and on whose shoulders with which philosophies he stood, but field theory is returning. It is returning because the detour into particle physics hasn’t resulted in anything but bizarre equations, money pits, and innumerable absurd postulations that begin with ‘What if the universe is actually such and such…”
It is clear the electrical theorists were on track before the Big Detour because their equations worked, whether a single line or thirty-five pages long. They took different dimensions and ideas like counter-space as a given. They used fundamentally-assumed properties that went as far back as Plato (probably further) and built upon them until they could be harnessed into electrical models which became machines and motors which depended on capacitors, grounds, and carefully-worked circuity to perform functions for mankind. Then, New York City was lit up. Then the world. Then we entered an era where we’ve become virtually dependent on technology and scream at boxes when their signals get interrupted. This is not the enlightened man. This is the dead-end of the detour.
The measure of a society’s greatness isn’t its ability to mass-produce and consume. It isn’t its ability to cram information and media down everyone’s throats. It isn’t most of what we claim to require for basic happiness. Ultimately, a society stabilizes and thrives based on its ability to connect with a greater idea or unifying principle. In the west, most formerly-unifying ideas have been replaced by quasi-religious identification with compartmentalized and meaningless activities, most of which are self-aggrandizing. This is actually one of the most reliable hallmarks of a civilization in decline. It will gnash and attempt to expand its influence and empire, but without any unifying groundwork, it will be hollowed out and devoured like so many before it because it no longer stands for anything. It may look like Disneyland on the outside, but the food court hasn’t enough food to sustain you through the long lines. We are now obsessed with a process that amounts to Feeding the Machine.
The field models were irreplaceable. They balanced. They unified. It would be like breathing air your entire life and then suddenly deciding you preferred breathing water because it too, contains oxygen and is easier to see and measure. One idea will work. The other will end your life.
I am not demanding people believe in God. I know the word only conjures images of Hollywood inquisitions, colonialism, and crusades all carried out by a white bearded man on a throne. I am not demanding people believe in Ether. For what we know, it could be a plasmic field with discrete properties and dimensions. It actually matters very little what name you give to the observed causality and deliberate patterning we see replete in biological systems. It matters little that certain institutions have hijacked these words and claimed to speak on their behalf or that other ideas have been given permanent tenure in academia. Both left and right wings of knowledge misunderstand and deliberately misrepresent their acuity here.
An adult human doesn’t need to subscribe to an ‘ism’. An adult human doesn’t need to pick a team or a side. An adult human has the capacity for rational thought, perception, and intuition. An adult human - even a child can (and often do) connect to the divine, but the signal is garbled. The distractions du jour come already clipped to the side of a machine-gun, ready for deployment and if you are an expert at these little distractions…you’ll never see the big picture, never look up at the sky on a clear night and wonder for the sake of wonder. This is a bigger tragedy than all the front pages combined.
Why do I jump from field models to consciousness to current climates? Because they are all interrelated. Because the acceptance of the field model means the acceptance of something greater than us. In the 21st Century we have been sold a series of toxic lies about ourselves and our place in the cosmos. We’ve been fed false narratives. We’ve been given false options. We’ve been told that we’re in the “best times ever” but we’ve also killed more of our fellow humans than ever before. We die from strange diseases that we don’t understand. We waste most of our lives in meaningless modes of behavior to achieve status and security. Gratitude and empathy are often perceived as liabilities. The idea that this amounts to progress is stunning. I would suggest rather, that we are at a crux. We are at the same crux that we always are: Humans with the capacity to choose.
It is not wishing that brought me to field models. It’s merely what the evidence suggests. It’s only in this age where science and spirituality have become so childishly at odds with each other that people feel existentially threatened by one or the other. A conscious man will kill neither in name of science or religion but how apt that leaders use religious tomes to deploy weapons that rely on advanced combustive science. It is not the tenants of one or the other that decide a man’s actions. It is the level of understanding that man has for either which informs him first. An ignorant man will kill over a pair of shoes or a petty insult.
I walked into the living where I was experimenting with running dual audio frequencies yesterday: 432 HZ x PHI in a left-right stereo field. As I walked around I entered certain spots where standing waves and harmonics overlapped and clung together. My body felt abuzz with the resonance. Then I walked a mere foot to the left and encountered spots of quiet coherent phasing where the signal came through unadulterated. I thought on this for awhile. I marked places where similar phasing occurred and found patterns throughout the room, which was afloat in information.
I imagined breaking the scale down to measurable 10’ x 10’ cubes and sampling the information within in each cube, then breaking those cubes down into smaller 10’ x 10’ cubes and sampling the information again. Regardless of where I sampled and no matter how small, the cube would be receiving information from three dimensions: forward/backward, side to side, up/down. What could you ascertain about the nature of the original signal by sampling the smallest quanta of information?
What can you ascertain about the nature of the English language by cutting off the right foot of the letter “R” and putting it under a microscope?
What can you learn about a child’s first experience on a tricycle by measuring the length of his socks?
On the Pacific Crest Trail I found myself wondering about the ways of nature and what language it spoke - that is, what constructs did it fundamentally adhere to? Was it even observable? Was nature so wild? So unadulterated? So mysterious? Or was it so profoundly simple that the modern mind couldn’t resolve anything decent to say about it? The birds just woke up and flew around about like clockwork in the morning air. The bears ambled through fields of blueberries, sniffing here and there. The sun melted the snow on the mountaintops and then it turned into water and ran down the canyons and fed the plants and animals and dormant seeds and everything that needed to be fed. The mountains themselves were made out of ancient seabeds raised thousands of feet into the air to temperatures where snowfall was possible. It just happened. These cycles took millions of years to become stable and they did so without a single rational utterance. I found it miraculous in the literal sense. Everything I depended on for survival occurred because of other cycles far outside of my comprehension level but I was not the right foot of the letter “R”. I, along with everyone and every thing else, was intrinsic to the story.
When I returned I wondered just how we became so terrified of nature; so contrasted in our assumptions and beliefs. It was almost as if we had an antagonizing relationship with it; like a teenager with mommy issues; a fundamental mistrust. Well, Jung would have something to say about that, but we repeatedly encountered the idea that we’d been ‘running away’ from something. Numerous people said “Well, I would if I could”, ergo: “I live in the real world with grownup responsibilities. Walking from Mexico to Canada would be a clear violation of the quiet agreements I have with some vaguely established rules.” We never told people to walk the trail. I couldn’t care less. The less the better - but they often felt obliged to offer their two cents. The theme of running away from something came up again when we began talking seriously about the CDT, so I paused as I always do, and let it percolate.
Then I thought hey, wait a minute: We’ve lived on an ever-expanding grid in the midst of a telecommunications, career-driven, war-oriented, techno-fetish soup for less than 100 years out of 14,000+ known years of civilization. There’s nothing remotely ‘normal’ about it and the idea of running away? What do you think humanity has been doing en masse since the industrial revolution? We hide out in pre-fab chemically-treated right-angled cubes and store disposable petroleum byproducts in them. The best we’ve come up with after all this innovation and progress is a marginal increase in life-expectancy that is still debatable from region to region vs quality of life etc, so who’s running away from what?
“Well, why don’t you go live in the woods forever then?” I’ve certainly considered that option, but I came back with a different perspective: I accept cities for what they are: Mass convenience; aspects of which I rather enjoy from time to time. Society ultimately functions for the convenience of people. It doesn’t require your life-long endorsement or worship.
When I use running water and flip light switches I compare it to the reality of the trail i.e. waiting for streams and springs and moving about when the sun allowed me to. When I watch a movie I tend to be more aware of how I’m spending my time and energy. It’s easy for people to fling ideas about, but it’s difficult for Hanne and I to somehow un-experience the subtle lessons that occurred from living in nature for six months.
It’s all brought me back to the particulars of field theory because I’m interested in natural systems. I don’t care what the latest greatest shiniest loudest most clever thing is. I want to know how fundamental systems work because I’d rather live in accordance with those principles (rationally observed and deducted) than whimsically riding the train of popular opinion. It’s just not sustainable and I’d hate to pass it down to the next generation on accident. I suppose it ultimately depends on whether life is just ‘whatever’ or actually sacred. I’ll bet on the latter, because I believe we are all that kid on the tricycle.
Comments
Post a Comment