The Simple Explanation suggests that a "universal unit of consciousness" carries all of the information that manifests as our particular time/space continuum. This universal unit of consciousness is the primal algorithm of the set of laws that govern our universe. Some people call that God. Other people think it all can be boiled down to math and physics.
[open Topical Index immediately below this title for all articles]
Pages
▼
Monday, January 10, 2011
Diagramming the Ineffable
Process Note: The images above were laid out in Power Point off of the notebook page below:
explain Look up explain at Dictionary.com early 15c., from L. explanare "to make level, smooth out;" also "to explain, make clear" (see explanation). Originally explane, spelling altered by influence of plain. In 17c., occasionally used more literally, of the unfolding of material things: Evelyn has buds that "explain into leaves" ["Sylva, or, A discourse of forest-trees, and the propagation of timber in His Majesties dominions," 1664]. Related: Explained; explaining; explains. (online etymology dictionary entry)
So the Simple Explanation means the Simple Unfolding of Material Things? Neat. We are the leaves, the universal UC the bud? Or is the tree the Universal UC, us the buds, and the leaves our thoughts and actions? Any ideas?
The buds that "explain into leaves" reminds me of Sheldrake's description of morphogenetic fields. Did you read the article about transpersonal memory? http://asimpleexplanation.blogspot.com/2011/01/simple-explanation-of-transpersonal.html
I came upon “A simple explanation…” myself searching for toroidal images; rather, their navigational terminology, to describe a dream of a bit of light from a toroidal mire lining up with sight and further in cognition. Eureka, < http://oolong.co.uk/Toroidia.htm > is interactive. These things are perhaps by definition alone ineffable: Except, we evolved in sound and light; and literacy. It is likely our understanding and communication are evolving these archetypal fields. Evolve: Another word for explain?
Wow! Thanks for telling us about the Toroidia site. That is a really fun program.
What do you mean by a "toroidal mire"? Do you mean "mirage" like a ghostly image of a toroid? Yes, I can see how the singular light of truth travels the straight pole line through the center of the toroid, lining up with sight.
I don't get the feeling these are so ineffable anymore. Perhaps we are evolving to perceive and understand these toroidal flows.
I generally think of evolving as growth. Usually that growth is forced upon us by circumstances/the Tao. Grow or die. Accommodate or die. If this toroidal perception is an evolution, then what is the application that will save us from death? Ah, if it is a spiritual toroid then it leads to life and consciousness itself. If it is the physical shape of every manifest thing, then understanding will lead us to another level of technology--a new toroidal revolution (compared with the industrial revolution or the computer revolution).
Compare “mire… c.1300, from O.N. myrr "bog, swamp,"” by “mirage, from se mirer "to be reflected," from L. mirare (see mirror)”(OED).
The singular light travels through the center of the toroid, lining up with perception (although, singular and light clash). As truth, also it could as well be light of space, time, energy, information, superstition, or light of the empty space between my ears.
Perhaps an interesting topic: http://books.google.com/books?id=momIk7nVNdkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22In+the+beginning%22&hl=en&ei=Shf4TKGuE5KisAOam4iQAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Peace PS: I'll post the dream image under yours... soon
Perhaps a great insult is to surrogate motherhood. How dare I take all from another (mine), then turn and take ever more from yet another (you)? In that I feel I have, I hold out my apology, which deserves abandonment.
Dream is anonymity; even to the dreamer: the safest place to be. And I have used that profile; silhouette (Jungian shadow or archetype words I would prefer): to bother, discourage, where I want to encourage.
To which point, I hope I have come: That “I shall prove to be”, what does, and the name given Moses in answer to his questioning: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” At this God said to Moses: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I shall prove to be has sent me to you.’(NWT): is.
Pretty lengthy name. Reminds me of Zeno’s paradox.
From my above now not so anonymous post link, Joel M. Hoffman puts forth that the written vowel symbols that engendered a more common literacy are the (same as) the name of the Almighty. The implications as to simple explanations are many, as I see it. It happened thousands of years ago, and he says it so much better. The link is to a preview. The book costs too much.
Thanks for unmasking yourself. I was wondering if this was a new "anonymous" or our original "anonymous" from a year ago. okay. I'll go look at the preview.
I've read the posted preview of Joel Hoffman's book, "In the Beginning: A Short History of the Hebrew Language" at the google books link provided in greg's comment above. Yes, it is indeed an interesting topic and I'm so pleased you found implications to the simple explanation. Many fascinating ideas. Vowels introduced to written language by the Hebrews as exclusively Hebraic memes, and so special that their all-vowel name for God could only be written in Hebrew. Moreover, the all-vowel name for God (yhwh) was unpronouncable; chosen not for speech but for exclusivity in written form. Hoffman takes a scientific approach to these things (so he says). I'm wondering if the unpronouncable name of God (yhwh) might be the same unprouncable sound of God or the Tao traditionally represented as "OM." It is generally accepted that the sound of OM is not actually phonetically om. It's described as all sounds rolled into ONE sound. The roaring of thunder, the deep vibrations of ocean waves, and whatnot. Maybe yhwh is the same sound. Anybody with me here?
These characters might have been any; and human culture by all means precedes Hebrew.
How is the name of their ancient god, who’s name was ever recalled by their simpler, being the letters that engendered their mass literacy, be relevant to our simple explanation? It could depend on how simple an explanation must be; for anyone. As in, an example of what happens in every culture.
Regardless the example of an evolving language, before its mass literacy, durable information, literacy and numeracy, was practiced by fewer, and what was in their medium was lesser. After, it is practiced by their many, and the medium contains more.
Perhaps this amounts to increasing fractalization of the UC bounds, effecting the clarity of vision.
PS: Sheesh! Cyd, you read so fast I can’t keep up; and I’m so sorry to interrupt if I have. It is your intuitive attraction to the resonance of memes I truly appreciate. Thank you so much for letting me on!
Increasing literacy probably increases fractal diversity but not necessarily clarity of vision. The Tao te Ching repeatedly urges populations to lean less on knowledge and rely more on conscious participation in the here and now. Would you agree that mass literacy would have the tendency to spread "aboutisms" rather than "knowing"? Odd to find myself arguing against literacy...
I am reminded that Plato and … his friend (ironically, I didn’t look for the name, in Timothy Ferris’ “Coming of Age in the Milky Way”) argued over literacy. One didn’t like books, because writing pre-empted memory.
Yes, because that kind of knowledge is saturated with entropy. Our senses are constantly actuated, while writing; quik picture ; is “done”.
This blog has not rolled in a while. I hope it is a good place for this.
Would this be a hypo-cosmology?
I am a reluctant plumber. Plumbing is weird to describe; as in many other ways.
A large pipe distributes gradually into an ever smaller pipe that is pointed toward a small pipe that gradually collects into an ever larger pipe. These distributions and collections are branchings called trees.
Picture a tree, cut it in the middle, point the leaves (faucets) and connect that trunk to a system-source, and the roots (bowls) and connect that trunk to a system-sink, at each other. In its use, one functions between the leaves and the roots.
Plumber saying: “It is hard to remember your first intention was to unclog the sink, when you are up to your armpits in allegories”.
Plumbing has three trees: 1: Pipes that distribute water, 2: Pipes that collect water, and 3: A hierarchy of fixtures. These points-of-use provide for toroids of sanitary urge.
Thus, perhaps, plumbing is effable within this diagram.
There: Howzabout that? What precis (it’s a good pun), say you to that?
Parsimony: To silence the voices in my head and speak.
A powerful overview and coherent summary of "A Simple Explanation...!" Well done, Cyd!
ReplyDeleteIf the writing on any of these diagrams is too small, you should be able to click on the picture to make it larger on your computer screen.
ReplyDeleteexplain Look up explain at Dictionary.com
ReplyDeleteearly 15c., from L. explanare "to make level, smooth out;" also "to explain, make clear" (see explanation). Originally explane, spelling altered by influence of plain. In 17c., occasionally used more literally, of the unfolding of material things: Evelyn has buds that "explain into leaves" ["Sylva, or, A discourse of forest-trees, and the propagation of timber in His Majesties dominions," 1664]. Related: Explained; explaining; explains. (online etymology dictionary entry)
In explanation, I hoped 'the unfolding of material things', and the odd sounding phrase 'explain into leaves' would... amuse.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I was puzzled and amused. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteSo the Simple Explanation means the Simple Unfolding of Material Things? Neat. We are the leaves, the universal UC the bud? Or is the tree the Universal UC, us the buds, and the leaves our thoughts and actions? Any ideas?
The buds that "explain into leaves" reminds me of Sheldrake's description of morphogenetic fields. Did you read the article about transpersonal memory? http://asimpleexplanation.blogspot.com/2011/01/simple-explanation-of-transpersonal.html
Thank you for taking the time to share.
I came upon “A simple explanation…” myself searching for toroidal images; rather, their navigational terminology, to describe a dream of a bit of light from a toroidal mire lining up with sight and further in cognition.
ReplyDeleteEureka, < http://oolong.co.uk/Toroidia.htm > is interactive.
These things are perhaps by definition alone ineffable: Except, we evolved in sound and light; and literacy. It is likely our understanding and communication are evolving these archetypal fields.
Evolve: Another word for explain?
Wow! Thanks for telling us about the Toroidia site. That is a really fun program.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by a "toroidal mire"? Do you mean "mirage" like a ghostly image of a toroid? Yes, I can see how the singular light of truth travels the straight pole line through the center of the toroid, lining up with sight.
I don't get the feeling these are so ineffable anymore. Perhaps we are evolving to perceive and understand these toroidal flows.
I generally think of evolving as growth. Usually that growth is forced upon us by circumstances/the Tao. Grow or die. Accommodate or die. If this toroidal perception is an evolution, then what is the application that will save us from death? Ah, if it is a spiritual toroid then it leads to life and consciousness itself. If it is the physical shape of every manifest thing, then understanding will lead us to another level of technology--a new toroidal revolution (compared with the industrial revolution or the computer revolution).
Compare “mire… c.1300, from O.N. myrr "bog, swamp,"” by “mirage, from se mirer "to be reflected," from L. mirare (see mirror)”(OED).
ReplyDeleteThe singular light travels through the center of the toroid, lining up with perception (although, singular and light clash). As truth, also it could as well be light of space, time, energy, information, superstition, or light of the empty space between my ears.
Perhaps an interesting topic: http://books.google.com/books?id=momIk7nVNdkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22In+the+beginning%22&hl=en&ei=Shf4TKGuE5KisAOam4iQAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Peace
PS: I'll post the dream image under yours... soon
Dear Cyd Ropp,
ReplyDeletePerhaps a great insult is to surrogate motherhood. How dare I take all from another (mine), then turn and take ever more from yet another (you)? In that I feel I have, I hold out my apology, which deserves abandonment.
Dream is anonymity; even to the dreamer: the safest place to be. And I have used that profile; silhouette (Jungian shadow or archetype words I would prefer): to bother, discourage, where I want to encourage.
To which point, I hope I have come: That “I shall prove to be”, what does, and the name given Moses in answer to his questioning: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” At this God said to Moses: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I shall prove to be has sent me to you.’(NWT): is.
Pretty lengthy name. Reminds me of Zeno’s paradox.
Stay precious.
From my above now not so anonymous post link, Joel M. Hoffman puts forth that the written vowel symbols that engendered a more common literacy are the (same as) the name of the Almighty. The implications as to simple explanations are many, as I see it.
ReplyDeleteIt happened thousands of years ago, and he says it so much better.
The link is to a preview. The book costs too much.
Thanks for unmasking yourself. I was wondering if this was a new "anonymous" or our original "anonymous" from a year ago.
ReplyDeleteokay. I'll go look at the preview.
I've read the posted preview of Joel Hoffman's book, "In the Beginning: A Short History of the Hebrew Language" at the google books link provided in greg's comment above.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is indeed an interesting topic and I'm so pleased you found implications to the simple explanation. Many fascinating ideas. Vowels introduced to written language by the Hebrews as exclusively Hebraic memes, and so special that their all-vowel name for God could only be written in Hebrew. Moreover, the all-vowel name for God (yhwh) was unpronouncable; chosen not for speech but for exclusivity in written form.
Hoffman takes a scientific approach to these things (so he says).
I'm wondering if the unpronouncable name of God (yhwh) might be the same unprouncable sound of God or the Tao traditionally represented as "OM." It is generally accepted that the sound of OM is not actually phonetically om. It's described as all sounds rolled into ONE sound. The roaring of thunder, the deep vibrations of ocean waves, and whatnot. Maybe yhwh is the same sound. Anybody with me here?
These characters might have been any; and human culture by all means precedes Hebrew.
ReplyDeleteHow is the name of their ancient god, who’s name was ever recalled by their simpler, being the letters that engendered their mass literacy, be relevant to our simple explanation? It could depend on how simple an explanation must be; for anyone. As in, an example of what happens in every culture.
Regardless the example of an evolving language, before its mass literacy, durable information, literacy and numeracy, was practiced by fewer, and what was in their medium was lesser. After, it is practiced by their many, and the medium contains more.
Perhaps this amounts to increasing fractalization of the UC bounds, effecting the clarity of vision.
PS: Sheesh! Cyd, you read so fast I can’t keep up; and I’m so sorry to interrupt if I have. It is your intuitive attraction to the resonance of memes I truly appreciate. Thank you so much for letting me on!
Increasing literacy probably increases fractal diversity but not necessarily clarity of vision. The Tao te Ching repeatedly urges populations to lean less on knowledge and rely more on conscious participation in the here and now. Would you agree that mass literacy would have the tendency to spread "aboutisms" rather than "knowing"? Odd to find myself arguing against literacy...
ReplyDeleteI am reminded that Plato and … his friend (ironically, I didn’t look for the name, in Timothy Ferris’ “Coming of Age in the Milky Way”) argued over literacy. One didn’t like books, because writing pre-empted memory.
ReplyDeleteYes, because that kind of knowledge is saturated with entropy. Our senses are constantly actuated, while writing; quik picture ; is “done”.
This blog has not rolled in a while. I hope it is a good place for this.
ReplyDeleteWould this be a hypo-cosmology?
I am a reluctant plumber. Plumbing is weird to describe; as in many other ways.
A large pipe distributes gradually into an ever smaller pipe that is pointed toward a small pipe that gradually collects into an ever larger pipe. These distributions and collections are branchings called trees.
Picture a tree, cut it in the middle, point the leaves (faucets) and connect that trunk to a system-source, and the roots (bowls) and connect that trunk to a system-sink, at each other. In its use, one functions between the leaves and the roots.
Plumber saying: “It is hard to remember your first intention was to unclog the sink, when you are up to your armpits in allegories”.
Plumbing has three trees: 1: Pipes that distribute water, 2: Pipes that collect water, and 3: A hierarchy of fixtures. These points-of-use provide for toroids of sanitary urge.
Thus, perhaps, plumbing is effable within this diagram.
There: Howzabout that? What precis (it’s a good pun), say you to that?
Parsimony: To silence the voices in my head and speak.
Why are you a "reluctant" plumber? Do you not enjoy plumbing? Did you ever enjoy plumbing? If you weren't a plumber, what would you rather be doing?
ReplyDelete