The Age of Enamorment: The Age of Technological Narcissus.

There was the Dark Ages, The Age of Iron, the Age of Enlightenment, Colonization, The Age of Industrialization, The Atomic Age, The Information Age...

I contend that from the age of Iron and metal, man entered the age of Enamorment, in which he became so enamored of things, of himself, of dominion over the world, of technology, that there was fueled a rapid, frenetic, at times senseless, self-defeating and death defying technological enamorment, which we stand squarely in the midst of at this very moment.

It is my contention that wherever there is a world and beings which enter an age of technology, that world will enter an age of enamorment.

The world, must brace itself. The worlds "other" creatures must brace themselves, The worlds resources, plants, life forms, and very life sustaining processes and objects, must brace themselves as the planets enamored, technology wielding creatures enter fully, blindly, with zest, zeal, and without an ounce of compunction and at times, no control, or ability to rein in their desires, or to exercise any foresight, as they dive, plunge, toss, throw themselves into a full enamorment of their minds, thoughts, ego's, and technology. It is the fable of narcissus played out, through technolgy, which is the ultimate mirror for the imagined, inner processes, of our burgeoning, reaching, spiritually excluded super-meditation upon heirarchical otherness-technical complexity.

The world, can sustain itself through the onslaught. The world can survive and persist, and heal. man will survive, the creatures will survive, but not without grave, dire, consequences, which also serve to put a final end to the age of enamorment.

We will know when we have exited the age of enamorment.

When we use technology, to live in harmony with the world. To live more simply, in more symbiosis, with more diversity, more leisure, more teaching, learning, loving, praying, contemplation, meditation and intentionality and a minimum of technology. when we are able to wield technology to simplify our lives, add leisure to our lives, to de-industrialize, de-assemble our most recent creations.. when we use technology to harness and tap into the earths natural powers... when we use as our guide and measure for "good" technology, it's value in lengthening and sustaining the race of man, and all other animals.. when we use technology in this way, then we will be able to say that we are beginning to enter the age of de-enamorment, and true technological advance.

then we will have entered the true rising of the golden age of man, from the ashes of enamorment.

Perfection-SuperPerfection & Abandonment of the Subject-Object Approach

It has always disgusted me that as man has become more technologically removed from their environment, they have persisted in maintaining an increasingly Subject-object relationship with the environment.
But more on that later.

The theme of this exposition is Perfection and SuperPerfection
Perfection will be defined as a state of complete nothingness, where nothing exist, all is possible, and nothing occurs. The theory behind perfection as nothingness, is that "nothing" has a quality that no other state has, namely, that all possibilities exist, which is another way of saying that in the lack of "something" a state of perfection necessarily exists.

Absolute nothingness is a difficult concept for the human mind to wrap itself around. it is so used to grappling with meaning that is always associated with somethingness, it is uniquely inadequate to contemplate nothingness.

how big is nothing? is it infinitely small? infinitely large? no, it is nothing. neither. and yet at the same time, the possibility of everything.

SuperPerfection is defined as at the same time, less than, and more than Perfection (nothingness). If Perfection is the state of complete nothingness, then SuperPerfection is the state of complete somethingness, where all possibilities exist simultaneously, between potential and existence. SuperPerfection is limitless.

It is my theory that we currently exist within a state of SuperPerfection. The proof, is that we exist. Since we exist, we are not in a state of perfect all-possibility. We have crossed over into all creation.

And of course only man would exists in the realm where it is possible for man to exist, whereas, there are all other realms, where man does not.

Another beauty of perfection and SuperPerfection, is that all things are connected and interchanging and thus existent in all places and times, as a contingency of the possibility of SuperPerfection.

SuperPerfection necessitates such dualities, in fact, all dualities, such that the philosophical question, "do we exist?" and "what is existence?" and "is the world an illusion?" are all equally answerable by "yes" and "no" as well as "everything" and nothing.

Current theory holds that the total sum "energy" of our observable universe is zero. meaning that it can all cancel out as in an equasion, meaning, that all of existence not only could come out of a space smaller than the head of a pin, as in the big bang, but also that such an explanation is the only one that makes sense.

Which brings us to the exposition of the subject (man)- object (thing/environment) relationship.

Without introducing the concept of God, it has always been my notion that life exists becuase it is possible to exist. that is the sense defying seeming motivation and inertia of life to continually evolve into ever more complex and capable forms of beingness. As man becomes conscious, he imbues reality with consciousness. All is connected.

The miracle of our individual lives, is in fact a miracle, and also, a given, in that if anything exists anywhere, then all exist. Individuality, is but an individual which is inpossibly entwined within reality. Consciousness is a condition of our current state of being.

And, as living beings, we are indelibly married to the means of our creation. regardless of what we may think about our Earth, it is life-sustaining. therefore, we are beholden to it, and our primary concern is the continuation of our life forms, which necessitate the caretaking of all life and all things and all possibility on this planet.

existence is remarkably self-healing. It can heal itself from the scars of humanity.

regardless of what we think of technology, or our lack of connection to the world and fellow life forms, it would be wise to not get to far ahead of ourselves in terms of our relationship to the world and our fellow life forms on Earth.

Giving new meaning, new life, and scientific, rational proof and justification for the notion of 7th generation philosophies of many indigenous cultures. and a new orientation from which to observe and give credit to the genius and subtle, lovely balance between pre-technological cultures which have endured and persisted, relatively unchanged for thousands of years.

Notes on the Creation of the Universe

[In classical physics (appliable to macroscopic phenomena), empty space-time is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles). It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited, that is, no particles are present. Hence, it is the "ground state" of the quantum field, the state of minimum energy.]

Inflationary theory is now believed to be true.
although we don't know what preceded the big bang and the inflation of inflationary theory.

The basic idea is that a quantum fluctuation was responsible for creating something out of nothing.
it's a physically reasonable idea, meaning, that with our current understanding of physics and the parameters and conditions of our current model for the universe, it is a possible way in which reality was created.

I had always figured that the most incredible thing is not that something was created out of nothing. The simple fact that we are "here" shows that something must exist. if it had always existed, the question would be, "where did it come from?" and "how did it come into being?" so it's the same question.

For me, seeing as we have a huge clue (we are here) then the creation of the universe was not only a possibility, but an inevitably. It seems to me, that if there was any possibility that reality or matter, or our universe could be created, then it would be created. Why? well, because before there was anything, there was nothing. so the idea or concept of time, is irrelevant. so whether it took 500 billion, trillion eons for reality to be created, or a single 100 to the 10000000000 power fraction of a second to be created, both periods of time, would be possible, true and equal, seeing as with nothing, there is no time. time begins when we are created, so our creation was "immediate" as far as could possibly be determined.

So, now that our creation is inevitable, the question becomes, if there was nothing, not even the laws of physics. how did existence, or the quantum fluctuation know that it could occur? what allowed it to happen? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that quantum fluctuations are a necessary part of the universe, and the exchange of virtual particles is essential to physical reality.

One idea is that the fluctuation occurred in a higher dimensional space where the laws of physics were different and an alternative reality in another dimension already existed. if that was the case, then the quantum fluctuation only needed to be long enough for inflation to occur.

This idea of creation suggests that there are "universes", in fact, infinite universes and possibly, as quantum physics shows, there may be multiple universes in existence. In this scenario, our universe represents one of many universes, residing as a "bubble" within a grander, hyperspace along with other universes.

These other universes may have physical constants that differ slightly, such as the strength of the different forces (strong, weak), the acceleration of their inflation, the speed of light, etc. The constants of a given universe depends on details of how symmetry broke (the different forces), and how different manifestations of a unifying force, may be different.

Another possibility is that quantum fluctuations may occur after the original fluctuation, which may create multiple universes, which continue to branch off eternal chaotic inflation, with a series of separate universes.

another way of getting multiple universes may be through black holes, which may create "baby universes" this is seen in the contemplation and math of 'worm holes" black holes may create a new dimension that expands rapidly. one possibility is that the new universe may be different. or it could be that the new universes have the same characteristics as the parent universe. so they may be similar.

the bottom line is that there are a lot of ways to define "multiverses"

Free Lunch

Here is something I have understood for a while:
If the surface of the Earth represents the size of the known universe, the solar system on that scale would be the size of a single, small bacteria.

but now, I've learned something much more amazing:
Quite possibly, the actual universe may be hundreds of thousands of times larger than the known universe, such that what we can see, is merely a small fraction of that which exists. In this model, if the actual universe is as large as has been speculated, the size of our entire universe may be equivalent to the circumference of pluto and our galaxy in comparison, may be the size of an atom in this model.

some of the ideas about how the universe came into being is the "quantum fluctuation" theory, where at the moment the laws of physics became possible, a quantum fluctuation occurred (according to the uncertainty principle, which demonstrates that virtual particles come into being constantly), which then, greatly expanded and created the known universe. This fluxuation, would have had the same characteristics as a virtual particle, [which is thought to be one of the candidates for the composition of dark energy. dark energy is thought to account for 70% of the stuff of the known universe, dark matter is thought to account for up to 29% of the rest of the known universe, with visible matter accounting for anywhere from 1-9% of the known universe.] seeing as this particle would have no mass, it would not have to adhere to the "rational" concept of something. [Science can bypass the argument that the universe came out of nothing, due to the fact that calculations show that the net energy of the known universe is zero, which means that if all of the forces were combined, it would equal nothing. So, something from nothing, is merely an equasion and not an irrational perspective.] This fluxuation theory as cause of the universe, would only need to be in existence for a very short period of time -long enough for the conditions of inflation to take hold and create an irretrievable expansion of the energy such that it was expanding faster than the abiity of information to travel across it.


astroalex.com
hubblesite.org
astronomycafe.net
space.com

The Politics of Democracy, Education, Locality, Diversity & Community

"Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel."
-Socrates


I believe that democracy should not be larger than the ability of those who are effected by the decisions, to meaningfully participate in those decisions. From a legally, or technically defined limit according to this description, democracy could be as large as the population of the entire world, as long as each person in the world had the opportunity to "participate" by some arbitrary, defined meaning of the concept of "meaningfully". In fact the limit of "meaning" could be such that decisions could be made in France, and someone in Madagascar could be given a "ballot" with several choices on various choices on such topics as birth control, education, justice, academics, water policy.... you get the point.

This is not what I'm talking about when I say, democracy should not be larger than the ability of those who are effected by the decision to meaningfully participate in those decisions.

My limit would be much more narrowly defined. To give you an idea of what I'm speaking of, for example, no one should be able to make a decision which would effect any student in the local elementary school, than those individuals who work at, go to, or take care take those who go to that school.

That could be seen as "scary", well, no more scary than humanity itself. this is not to say that there shouldn't be some generally agreed upon constructs or limits on what can or should occur, but for a model of "how much" should be defined, I would say, we should turn our eyes to the primary organizing document for the entire united states, the constitution and it's amendments, most importantly, the first ten, which are known as the bill of rights.

The legal definition of a Constitution defines it as some which which:
1. Prescribes the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers
2. Is the absolute rule of action such that any official act in breach of it is illegal
3. Lists the rights of the individual and guarantees their protection
4. Derives its authority from the governed and is agreed upon by the people
5. Is the fundamental law of a Nation or State.


Recently, the European Union crafted a "constitution" they ended up with a document that was 855 pages long.

The United States Constitution by contrast is 9 pages long including the bill of rights. 3 pages of the 9 pages, are signatures.

There should be a "constitution" for education. either that, or the U.S. government should not have the right to govern or participate in community educational policy seeing as it has no constitutional authority to do so. Yes, the constitution gives representatives the rights to make laws which govern the nation, yet, as i see it, education is protected by the bill of rights, for what is the bill of rights, if that right does not include the right to educate oneself in the manner in which one sees fit?

There are some obvious possible shortfalls to this idea of such locally controlled educational policy. but besides some general provisions, such as a requirement for individuals to understand a certain level of reading comprehension, math, history, and understanding of the abilities and needs of the "human body", and most importantly, be exposed to the great ideas of all the worlds cultures, and of course, the preciousness of all life, of course animal life, and the importance of responsible life creation (family planning), sexuality, and the importance of preserving the future possibility of life, at the expense (if necessary) of the individuals who are currently alive.

individual communities, at the size of the county at the largest, should be determining educational policy.

The government can play a role in the development of ideas, and philosophy and disseminating the best of the different models of education. So I don't say the government beyond the level of county should play a role.

But local control, will employ a much larger factor of the most precious of human potentialities, creativity, uniqueness, and diversity.

Universities would need to work much harder to be inclusive of this diversity, and become much less dictatorial in their curriculum. universities would have to work, and work diligently and with reasoned compassion and passionate interest, to construct educational populations, which can challenge, sustain and expand, the parameters of the universities "teaching".

Universities then, in this way, would become alive and invariably would partake in this vital form of democratic, locally dictated education. The different forms of education would be as diverse as the number of universities and colleges themselves.

I believe, in the basic libertarian idea of a diminished of government and an enhancement of individual rights, yet, i do not truly believe that individuals have ultimate rights. I believe that the ultimate level of social organization and decision, is in the form of defined communities which share local resources, local area, and issues, and the ability to gather easily to describe and disseminate their information. yes, there is a lot of room for definition in this. the "community" can be described more fully elsewhere, yet, the community will also be different according to the issue described and decided upon and the qualities and properties (intellectual and otherwise) of those issues.

I believe that the future of the world rests in altruism, small communities and a vital battle for the future of life. Those who are yet to be born, are much more important and should be given a much larger consideration in decision making than the 0% influence they currently enjoy.

once government is tamed, and communities are formed, i anticipate a war for the future of the planet. and this war will take place as the small communities realize that their future, and their survival will be impeded upon and impinged and threatened, by the decisions made by other communities.

and so, another property of local democracy is that local democracies, can not make decision which impact other communities in any negative sense, or in any way which impacts the future ability of other communities to survive.

there are many other ideas within this philosophy which are interesting, yet the conditions have been largely defined.

The Myth-understanding of Rationality

If the world functioned with the true definition of "rational" then no one would dare call another human, "irrational".

Economic theory is founded (at least partially) by the idea of rationality, or a degree of irrationality, or an aspect of rationality as a variable in the marketplace.

Adam Smith's great contribution, was to point out that the essence of the free market economy is that it is organized, not centrally, rather, by the forces of pure economics. which is to say that no one need tell anyone what to do in a free market economy. the actions of the participants will be dictated, by their knowledge, their skills, their products and their ability to move capital, goods, services and payment through the economy. All of which will be controlled by (simply)supply, demand, tastes & preferences.

What is something worth? exactly what you are willing to pay for it. Or, if it is essential, then the price will move according to other, more complex variables. Opportunities will be created by others who are able to move additional goods into the market place.

In the event of a glut, then the sellers suffer. In a condition of scarcity, the sellers profit handsomely.

which brings us back to rationality.

I'm not speaking of rationality, in terms of economics. I'm speaking of the higher binary.

Years ago, i had a vision for how to produce a working, functioning, thinking artificial brain. construct an object with multiple points, linked through multiple ports. the input, would consist of a certain number of senses. cameras for eyes. sensors for temperature, sharpness, humidity, pressure, etc. microphones for ears, sensors for smell, taste, etc. new sensors for other discernible, identifiable forms of information.

What would make the brain work, is the ability of the brain to record sequences of actions and the subsequent ability over time, to respond to said information. certain combinations of sensory data, would precede other patterns of information, in this way (when it occurred) the artificial "brain" would be able to respond meaningfully (for it) to it's environment.

is this not what the human brain does? the simplest of programs exist. the pain of hunger, the discomfort of skin, pressure, sharpness, causes the baby to react. interaction by caretakers, the rhythm of day, sleep, stimulation, "care taking" impress a discernible pattern which can be anticipated and responded to.

it's no wonder that the neonate is unable to begin to construct retrievable, describable, described "memory" for several years. it takes that long to make sense of the mumbo-jumbo of experience.

In this scenario, a "brain" is simply something that not only reacts to situations to the extent of it's physical constitution and physics, rather, the ability to record, anticipate, and react to this information.

Which brings us back to rationality.

rationality is nothing more than the human name for the process by which we make meaning of our environment and act upon it.

do humans live? and some perish, and others thrive? do humans produce? interact? the development of language to record and externalize understanding. the ability to "teach"... all of this impresses the idea of rationality, which is nothing more than that which is more "right" more "pleasurable" more life sustaining.. a better description...

but to make sense of the word "rationality" and extend/attribute to it, the notion of meaning beyond humans to "truth" is an error. rationality, the terms makes no claim to have meaning beyond a description of a seeming intellectual process.

from wikipedia, rationality is described as, "...explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding."

It's a major point, which can be seen as subtle, or even as a fact, but it is often forgotten. the inter subjectivity of experience, the ironclad pattern of some aspects of reality, the seeming supposition that everything can, in some way, at some time, be explained, is only an account of the limits of the human mind... and so on and so forth to the limits of abstraction.


Interesting link: the twelve virtues of rationality: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues