Nighthood

NIGHTHOOD. 21JUN01 05:27am This is the deep water of the mind. Be warned. it is dark. do not try to complain of the deep and dark ness. we go forward or not but at this depth. you see the sulphur beds. the origins of something or other, we do not know what will happen next, nor do we care. it is night.

22jun01 17:33 We already travel in time, in sleep especially; if I were actually present 3000 years ago, I would observe that contemporary world the same way I observe this one: by TV --- but today on TV I watch the ancients anyway. I would know more if I were now a student of such and managed physically to time-travel and had then status enabling me to continue my studies, but that assumes not only time-travel back, but also in a manifestation of my own choosing --- but what if my soul traveled back and resided in an ancient peasant; and are some of the people called insane actually time travellers trapped?

And what would I want to know by time-traveling---what would be my interest, what meaning to me would those times have---how would they be comprehensible?

But what if I could go back 10500 years and see if there really was such a civilization as the ancient Egyptians are conjectured to be sourced in? Maybe I would find only three geniuses working in secret to influence their own future in the far distance even. What is civilization? Maybe it is what is between my own ears (and hips). “Life is individual”.

Another consideration is my meeting of my own ancesters before my own conception: perhaps it is best to focus on the future---the importance of vector must not be lost sight of: in all logical exercise vector is determinate; unfortunately throughout the history and present of philosophy this is persistently ignored. So maybe we can time-travel, but only into the future.

Accordingly, we could be anonymous today, even to oneself (extending the Freudian paradox that says most behavior is controlled unconsciously).

Or if I go back in time, but not as my own person, then what if that other manifestation of me meets my own ancesters? Well, interference would still be possible; what could the consequences be?

But there could be a vector that ensures that there be only positive effect in such a situation: I could not prevent my own birth, but I could indeed encourage it. But there could also be similar possibilities: what if in, say 3000 AD, one could go back and control who gets born in 2000AD? What if certain sperm etc could be chosen, knowing (or experimenting) who would be born? How would this tie in with what we now call genetic manipulation?

Or are there strict ethics applied to time travellers, heavily policed by some state-types, so the unpleasantnesses (indeed, some beyond our present imagination) would be held in check, like the Swartzeneger movie?

Another consideration: there is a tendency to conceive of thinking as a flower blooming since the dawn of time; thoughts do not occur until after certain others have occurred, and this flow of thought thru eons progresses in relationship with a supposed natural evolution---evolution of thought being in a dimension different from that of “survival of the fittest”, but having its own logic.

And what if some (at least) of human thought ( and resulting behavior) has been controlled by outside forces (extra-terrestrials and/or time-travellers): the frequently monstrous conduct of The Vatican.

Of course, time-travel (as at least one scientist on TV has emphasized) would not be physical in the normal sense, but rather in an abstract function. This brings me back to my own theory of cosmology: The Eternal Abstract Relationship.

I have for about a dozen years been mentioning my theory here and there, and like to see how it affects what I observe. It is ALL encompassing. It says the notion of creation, in ANY sense, is absurd; that life has ALWAYS existed, and the anomaly is the opposite: it is actually impossible to conceive of non-life. But what passes for thought among hoi poloi is stupider than cats.

Furthermore, we must distinguish between the two concepts “The Actual” (tangible), and “The Real” (cosmic being)---the ancients grappled with this but got stuck in the curse of philosophy, ie, reification (failure to distinguish between a thought and a thing). So we get pathetic quaint notion like the ideal pancake in the sky.

But some people cannot perceive Abstraction. This may be genetic, or birth-defect or brain-washing, or all of the above. Anyway, I can give a superficial example: I fotographed a fried egg on bread resembling an ancient marble face, and some people I showed it to got it right away, but some could not; it seemed that some of the latter were at least as bright generally as the former (and I did not notice a problem of ego-involvement (getting up-tight after a few seconds of inability). I suggest the reason was some people see abstraction and some do not. Be that as it may, I do not try to convince one and all of my theory, since I think the notion of The Abstract is quite beyond some folks innate (or may as well be) ability to conceive.

An easy introduction to all this is the conception of the Electron: it is not a thing, it is an inferred force-manifestation; yet its existence is not questioned, and its effects are the objects of vast efforts at understanding. Much of physics is obsorbed in such considerations, of abstract pattern movement in reasonable form giving effects in the tangible world.

What I am doing is seeing beyond this to the question of the origin of the universe, and asking why not basically abstract and secondarily concrete, by virtue of patterns in movement coming together as what we understand as form, and resulting in what we understand as life? Now, I emphasize that however far one chooses to apply this principle of awareness, it is helpful : in small ways as well as large, taking this perspective helps one perceive what is going on.

I thin k I had better clean up the kitchen now, lest my host gets back from another place and looks upon me with unction.

290601 03:44am Consider how come people see beauty any way you define it---how come we can respond at all to form? I do not mean psychologically, I mean in a deep philosophical sense, how come? How can we see “The Man In The Moon”? How come we RESPOND at all with anything or any thought, how come we appreciate form, see faces, know one person from another?

It seems to me that we have a basic capacity to RELATE---we relate because we all (including animals) are is a condition of RELATIONSHIP: we are not basically separate; we live in relationship. I do not mean we are friends, I mean that separate objects are manifestations of RELATIONSHIP, and separate objects have any meaning at all as part of life due to being part of cosmic relationship (and this applies far beyond animals, to include amoeba and electrons and the paths of subatomic particles and notional entities of all sorts, even licorice colored candies. We are in a play of relationship, and that is what we are, electrons in the play of relationship, and relationship is profligate: it throws out candies of all sorts and that is why evolution just grows like Topsy.

Our physical existence and cessation of existence as we know it, is what interests us, but it is silly to believe we are the goals of planning. Our brains and/or minds and/or souls or whatever, need not pretend to understand; and not understfanding is alright: we need not hand over to an imaginary entity the impossible “task” of understanding---understanding is not necessary, and the love of understanding is the tree of much evil (to paraphrase a couple of Biblical texts).

So, again, how come we see faces in rocks and trees, and how come flounders have faces resembling people we know, and faces are ubiquitous all thru the world of creatures of all sorts even those not eating candy?!? It may be that the same pattern of forces which produced the man in the moon gave this planet life as we know it, perhaps due to fields of “electrical” forces---maybe if we find “life” in distant planets, it may resemble the patterns found on their moons.

The complexities needed for the formation of life on this planet may not have been available, but the complexities are far far greater than commonly realized: think of lightning, of the gradual distancing of the moon from us, of innumerable variations of temperature, humidity and other factors we lose sight of or do not conceive of, at least not yet. And observing open to relationship helps our minds see what we have yet to see.

120701 18:44 I designate “pre-think-choice” the capacity to decide what to think at any particular moment: i e, by think here, I do not mean opine---I mean, that there is a mental function which sits as driver on a tractor steering the activity called thought, and deciding what to actively focus on and do as thinking at any particular moment.

This can be studied along with the mysterious process of sequentiality of thought (e g, how do I know when to remember this or that).

This coordinates with my notion “dream-think”. Once when I fell asleep in class I imagined the question being formulated by the teacher in other terms, those of a barnyard, and when he put the question I raised my hand but immediaterly realized I was about to answer in pigs and corn and chickens, while he was talking about something like the life of Wolfgang Kohler. So as he in surprise that I was participating, looked to me suggesting I speak, I waved him off. He was disappointed. He was very patient with me, as I accompanied one of his favorite students to those too early (eight in the morning, or so it seemed) classes, as auditor (not for credit).

So I was aware that what I was thinking was not appropriate to the moment (ptc)(prethinkchoice) and had been in dreamthink. But that was only one kind of dream think; I keep myself asleep when trucks go by by incorporating trucks going bye bye into my dreaming; and more importantly (perhaps) I deal with issues specific and/or vague and/or multiform and various etc, by thinking while asleep, often in symbolic processes far beyond waking subtlety.

250701 16:13 In “Snorre” (the classic collection of Norse sagas), dreams are prominently refered to in Halvdan Svarte Saga paragrafs 6 and 7; also note the pig stye bit.

260701 02:31 One function of sleep is so we can express our anger without getting in trouble.

140801 07:07 Altho i knew it was a dream, I had to go back over to the duffle-bag I had tossed onto a train bench so as to not leave it there or let it get stolen---I kept saying it is only a dream, you do not have to protect the bag. But eventually i went over and got it. Then I considered all this. It was of course during semi-awake period.