to give lie to history and its ornamental exposition:
to any student of history, contradictory or alternative accounts bring into the mind a certain dissonance, and thus doubt. is such history true record or merely rather abstract, imaginative collections of themes and stories that blend detail with archetype, action with motive, paranoia with ambition, event with hyperbole, and so on? are these myths or legends, are these historical characters alive all around us, and in us even? and do we play up to history?
i mean, if we assume that the worst, which we all think about in our most paranoid state, does not actually happen, what then? is this an existential problem? a lot of bad things don't happen to us personally, but could they be real for other people? war is a series of motions, to be quite neutral about it, but i digress. and exaggeration works to stimulate interest, and symbolism and imagery impress the reader.
now this is a world of complexes, this is a metaphysical truth, there are, if you like, bundles of ideas and words and images that come together, either without much conscious effort, or with. to lie down and let your imagination wander happens to everyone. to deconstruct and interpret the most gaudy work of history, we should recognize the ornamental nature of its exposition. imagine the bright, colourful illustrations, the portraits, the weapons, the machines, the vehicles, the maps, the treasure, the clothes, the food, the banquets, the marriages. it would deal with the themes of rivalry, war, romance, ambition, failure, birth, life and death, family, travel, religion, politics, and change. now all these things affect everyone. how much are you like anyone in history? how much of history is true about you?
to be philosophical, the truest record of history that you could truly know, without contact with anyone else, would be your own diary, if you kept one. also, that people think about false things is without doubt. that a crazy mind might see and read false things is the next logical step. and that any record is perhaps unstable and liable to mutation is also true, as time means change.
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Monday, October 19, 2015
The Porosity of the 3D Audio Visual Projection Field
the porosity of the 3D audio visual projection field:
"so i think about my eyesight and hearing...we're audio visual animals, but i'm sure i'm not entirely what i see and hear right? there are other things, invisible to me, around me...the whole computer thing now, the cloud, i'm surrounded by an invisible cloud of information, and there's the whole machinery of everything that connects me to Earth, that controls what i see and hear, right? what do i call it, my eyesight and hearing? i think i'll call it the 3D audio visual projection field. and maybe everything you see exists in micro form, and it's encoded too, and then it is projected somehow in front of me, i can see it, and you know of course we can see what others see too."
"that's how we live in the same world, Earth."
"right. the problem i have is how does it seem so solid, what i see, that it seems like that's all that's there? i have a focus, i see what i focus on, the rest not so clear, but how can there be anything else that's there, in the focus area?"
"here i think we have to deal with the porosity of the field, what you see seems solid, seems a contiguous image with no gaps, but it's simply not true. the 3D audio visual projection field, the 3DAVPF, is porous, there are gaps."
"right, so maybe it seems there are no gaps, but an image that seems planar, seems contiguous, it's still projected at various distances so only seems non-porous."
"right. the question is how much of matter is used at the focus to render images and sound in the 3D audio visual projection field? 20%? 70%?"
"you know it seems most of it. it's ridiculous that it seems 100% of course. how much power does the 3DAVPF use, if we thought about it terms of electricity, like an electrical machine? i mean no wonder it's exhausting to be awake for a long time, it uses so much electrical power."
CLEARCHARGE
"so i think about my eyesight and hearing...we're audio visual animals, but i'm sure i'm not entirely what i see and hear right? there are other things, invisible to me, around me...the whole computer thing now, the cloud, i'm surrounded by an invisible cloud of information, and there's the whole machinery of everything that connects me to Earth, that controls what i see and hear, right? what do i call it, my eyesight and hearing? i think i'll call it the 3D audio visual projection field. and maybe everything you see exists in micro form, and it's encoded too, and then it is projected somehow in front of me, i can see it, and you know of course we can see what others see too."
"that's how we live in the same world, Earth."
"right. the problem i have is how does it seem so solid, what i see, that it seems like that's all that's there? i have a focus, i see what i focus on, the rest not so clear, but how can there be anything else that's there, in the focus area?"
"here i think we have to deal with the porosity of the field, what you see seems solid, seems a contiguous image with no gaps, but it's simply not true. the 3D audio visual projection field, the 3DAVPF, is porous, there are gaps."
"right, so maybe it seems there are no gaps, but an image that seems planar, seems contiguous, it's still projected at various distances so only seems non-porous."
"right. the question is how much of matter is used at the focus to render images and sound in the 3D audio visual projection field? 20%? 70%?"
"you know it seems most of it. it's ridiculous that it seems 100% of course. how much power does the 3DAVPF use, if we thought about it terms of electricity, like an electrical machine? i mean no wonder it's exhausting to be awake for a long time, it uses so much electrical power."
CLEARCHARGE
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Elements of the Tragedy of Menemeides and Amronoeia
elements of the tragedy of Menemeides and Amronoeia:
what of love lost, a failed romance, to scar forever the hearts of the couple involved? and from heartbreak to the death of romantic feeling, Menemeides and Amronoeia turned away from each other, both abandoned, a vacuum where love once grew, now empty.
perhaps only the capricious in heart could fall in love so easily, for just as unaccountable as the end was when it came, so too was the premise of this romantic adventure. Menemeides, in temperament, was not a proud man, nor one for excessive vainglory in life. Fate placed the couple together, and for a time, it was wondrous in experience. Menemeides thought Amronoeia very nice and he validated her sense of self. Amronoeia was loquacious and had an easy charm about her. however she, and perhaps Menemeides too, in his own way, were both judgmental in nature and placed value in conversation.
now easy words from loose tongues turn, when angry, confused and frustrated, and in haste, and when enveloped by the toxic atmosphere of prejudice and envy, to harsh words. that a couple should come together, that two worlds should be connected, is not an unobserved event. perhaps the goddesses watch, perhaps there were antagonists at work? that Menemeides always hoped perchance to impress with his words, that it seemed Amronoeia cared not came as a cruel blow to him. that his pride suffered is not true, for he was not proud, and do very proud people ever fall in love, truly? he felt only sorrow. and his silence seemed to Amronoeia that he now cared little or nothing.
now the audience may judge that Menemeides did not feel respect adequately, neither for himself first of all, for his sorrow lessened his faith in his own capacity distorting his self opinion to a grotesque caricature of inadequacy, and of course secondly, for Amronoeia. he simply could not forgive nor accept Amronoeia for what she was, someone who makes mistakes she regrets. of course Menemeides was capable of more. he could not see himself as the provider of comfort or a person of responsibility. Amronoeia, searching for signs that his love was not killed by one instance of a horrible malefication of words was heartbroken by the seeming absence of his love now.
it should be stated that for anyone to hold the spoken word as important, always risks the chance that it will turn tragic for just as free thought is out of our control sometimes, so is the spoken word or speech.
CLEARCHARGE
what of love lost, a failed romance, to scar forever the hearts of the couple involved? and from heartbreak to the death of romantic feeling, Menemeides and Amronoeia turned away from each other, both abandoned, a vacuum where love once grew, now empty.
perhaps only the capricious in heart could fall in love so easily, for just as unaccountable as the end was when it came, so too was the premise of this romantic adventure. Menemeides, in temperament, was not a proud man, nor one for excessive vainglory in life. Fate placed the couple together, and for a time, it was wondrous in experience. Menemeides thought Amronoeia very nice and he validated her sense of self. Amronoeia was loquacious and had an easy charm about her. however she, and perhaps Menemeides too, in his own way, were both judgmental in nature and placed value in conversation.
now easy words from loose tongues turn, when angry, confused and frustrated, and in haste, and when enveloped by the toxic atmosphere of prejudice and envy, to harsh words. that a couple should come together, that two worlds should be connected, is not an unobserved event. perhaps the goddesses watch, perhaps there were antagonists at work? that Menemeides always hoped perchance to impress with his words, that it seemed Amronoeia cared not came as a cruel blow to him. that his pride suffered is not true, for he was not proud, and do very proud people ever fall in love, truly? he felt only sorrow. and his silence seemed to Amronoeia that he now cared little or nothing.
now the audience may judge that Menemeides did not feel respect adequately, neither for himself first of all, for his sorrow lessened his faith in his own capacity distorting his self opinion to a grotesque caricature of inadequacy, and of course secondly, for Amronoeia. he simply could not forgive nor accept Amronoeia for what she was, someone who makes mistakes she regrets. of course Menemeides was capable of more. he could not see himself as the provider of comfort or a person of responsibility. Amronoeia, searching for signs that his love was not killed by one instance of a horrible malefication of words was heartbroken by the seeming absence of his love now.
it should be stated that for anyone to hold the spoken word as important, always risks the chance that it will turn tragic for just as free thought is out of our control sometimes, so is the spoken word or speech.
CLEARCHARGE
Thursday, October 15, 2015
To Give Expression to Another
to give expression to another:
on meeting it is often somewhat surprising what transpires sometimes, is it mere exchange of words, a glance in the direction of another's face, or rather, much much more? what exactly is given? it is a fallacy that light is all the same, it is a fallacy then, much more obviously, that all words sound the same, that words may be delivered in an accent unique to the individual, is plain to all. a person has its own light, it may have its own sound, to remove the concept of the personal unique from science is a grave omission, is it not? what matter is here may not be what matter is elsewhere, it may not be the same or even similar in quality.
an emotional expression, often realized in the face of another, or cast in an aura that stretches across space, is not exactly easily definable, perhaps, but rather evident sometimes. what is it? is it about the other person's emotions, of want and happy perhaps, or their light, or some complex of thoughts and ideas, or a mixture?
it would be remiss of any final form of science or metaphysics, to make an omission of this, to refuse to deal with this subject at all. that we are affected by others' emotions is not to be refuted. the original state of people's minds and their emotions and thoughts is not to be neglected. modernity, meeting, change, all these things conspire to transform, what people originally were may be shocking, the unreconstructed form of the person at time zero.
on the obvious, most meetings are about exchange of words. we could muse whether we hear exactly the sound at the other end of the audio stream, the voice of the other person, but this seems futile. we attach great import to what is actually said, more than what they think. but why? people do not necessarily say what they truly want to say or believe. in an angry moment, they might make a complete nonsense of speech, and live to regret what they said.
emotional expression, hard to qualify, but easy to recognize, is rather a volatile condition, certainly at target distance. even for yourself, it is somewhat of a delicate balancing act.
CLEARCHARGE
on meeting it is often somewhat surprising what transpires sometimes, is it mere exchange of words, a glance in the direction of another's face, or rather, much much more? what exactly is given? it is a fallacy that light is all the same, it is a fallacy then, much more obviously, that all words sound the same, that words may be delivered in an accent unique to the individual, is plain to all. a person has its own light, it may have its own sound, to remove the concept of the personal unique from science is a grave omission, is it not? what matter is here may not be what matter is elsewhere, it may not be the same or even similar in quality.
an emotional expression, often realized in the face of another, or cast in an aura that stretches across space, is not exactly easily definable, perhaps, but rather evident sometimes. what is it? is it about the other person's emotions, of want and happy perhaps, or their light, or some complex of thoughts and ideas, or a mixture?
it would be remiss of any final form of science or metaphysics, to make an omission of this, to refuse to deal with this subject at all. that we are affected by others' emotions is not to be refuted. the original state of people's minds and their emotions and thoughts is not to be neglected. modernity, meeting, change, all these things conspire to transform, what people originally were may be shocking, the unreconstructed form of the person at time zero.
on the obvious, most meetings are about exchange of words. we could muse whether we hear exactly the sound at the other end of the audio stream, the voice of the other person, but this seems futile. we attach great import to what is actually said, more than what they think. but why? people do not necessarily say what they truly want to say or believe. in an angry moment, they might make a complete nonsense of speech, and live to regret what they said.
emotional expression, hard to qualify, but easy to recognize, is rather a volatile condition, certainly at target distance. even for yourself, it is somewhat of a delicate balancing act.
CLEARCHARGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)