1 Where are we, really? 2 What has existence? 3 Of what use is time? 4 Hiding in plain sight 5 How much is enough? 6 Place your Order 7 What is Language? 8 Is believing Useful? 9 Everything is Soluble in Truth 10 A hammer is what a hammer does 11 The Stage is Set 12 This has to "click" 13 The Message in Measuring 14 Scaling the Mountain 15 This must "click" too 16 The story is chron-ILLOGICAL 17 Both and, Both Neither 18 FOURever is Minimum Case
Engagement with this Chapter requires an openness to consider what might seem like anecdotal, “coincidental,” or particular supposition or opinion. We contend that these (subjective) connections to the (objective) self-developing structural entities or Prime Forms provide the rational bridge which is a coherent and correlative union of context and content, the objective and subjective. This is not immediately obvious and understandable so some patience in allowing the ideas to gain traction is necessary. The reader should not simply accept or believe the contentions, but rather just file them for open consideration. We are introducing a generally unobserved language of universal themes and ideas expressed by prime architectures.
This study attempts to explain, from an actual structural perspective, what some psychologists think of as archetypes. Carl Jung, the father of the idea of archetypes, related that he had sympathy with the idea that the archetypes might be similar to the Platonic Forms existing as a form (type) of immutable transcendental entity. He considered this thought to be a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable. Pure Conceptuality erases the distinction of the “metaphysical” and “physical” by explaining that the natures of prime structures permeate everything perceivable as the perceiver and the perception are “made of the same stuff.” The nature of consciousness, itself, is essentially and generally understandable. We are a few steps away from uncovering and integrating the combination of perspectives necessary to share this whole vision, so be patient and push forward.
The constant is the speed of light (1) and the frequency is relative to the point of view. Self-conscious being is the fulcrum between the macro and the micro. When we look out at the horizon the road narrows convergent to an imagined point. When we just tilt our head up off the horizon the vision diverges to look out at the sky and stars. When we look inward the “sky” opens up again into the relatively galactic distances in the geometrically manifest interactive energetic structural network equillibrium (matrix) of the atomic conception. Conceptually, energy is potential in the nature of manifest form.by this one:
The constant is the speed of light (1) and the frequency is relative to the point of view. Self-conscious being is the fulcrum between the macro and the micro. This is an issue of relativity and frequency. If we imagine magnifying a photograph of an apple, for example, (going in microscopically) the resolvability of the picture will pixelate and disappear into spots of the ink on paper and then even going further in resolves to the fibers of paper. Going in even deeper in imagination we enter the molecular and atomic realm where the nucleus is relatively as distant from the electron as the earth is from the sun. As we go in the frequency of the observable field decreases and our relationship to the object of observation changes. What was a picture of an apple in the mind of the observer ultimately transforms into an atom. This whole scenario is dependent on the relativity relationship of the observer with the observable field. Conceptually, the micro transforms to a fulcrum point (conceptual sphere) where the micro and macro unify but then contain the potential conceptually to transform into the macro (high frequency) as we have studied up to this point.
In using tools, we must consider the nature of the tool and its appropriate use to the best of our ability. One common thought experiment is to think of presenting a highly technical tool like a camera to a primitive who can only see the resulting image as magic. The primitive could then use the camera as a tool to demonstrate his or her mastery of magic and enjoy the resulting power. We can understand all of the dynamics here and even appreciate the creativity, but there is an indisputable deception of the naive populace involved in the use of the tool. We could call it improper use even though it might be very effective in establishing some kind of control. The master-leader might even feel quite justified in the context of effectiveness without focusing much on understanding fully how the camera actually works. That is not necessary to his ends.
We point out here that much the same dynamic plays out in the distance of the populace from the ivory tower of scientific orthodoxy and fundamentalism. The use of the tool outside of context is faulty and in some sense inappropriate. To foster onto the public that string theory is somehow going to rationalize the Universe is nonsense. String theory cannot even be imagined except in pure, sophisticated and exclusive mathematical language. It is somewhat analogous to using a hammer to drive a bolt into a nut. If you hammer hard enough, you might get the job done with some left over threads to analyze, but simply turning the bolt or the nut in harmony with the realized design is the correct solution achieving union with a very small properly applied effort by looking anew at the problem. The Hadron Collider is simply a very big hammer in concept and fact. We stand in awe of the engineering and physical mastery of the project and its intent. There is no error in the manifestation or intent. In some sense the proof is in the pudding for those specialists involved in each aspect of such a grand enterprise. The existence of that enterprise and the pride in its hammering capabilities is well deserved. It is worth considering, though, there is another proposition where the hammer is irrelevant to the investigation when seen from another angle.
Replaced by these two:
In using tools, we must consider the nature of the tool and its appropriate use to the best of our ability. One common thought experiment is to present an out of context tool, like an instant camera, into a social group which has no contact or familiarity with that technology. The unexplainable and amazing phenomenon of a photo would be an amazement at least and proprietary possession of that tool could imbue its possessor with power. Even without understanding the camera, the owner could claim the power. We could call that improper use even though it might be very effective in establishing some kind of high status used in control. A master-leader in possession of such a tool might even feel quite justified in the context of effectiveness without thinking much about how the camera actually works. That is not necessary to his or her agenda. A mind set of honest curiosity and truth seeking renders the line of thought above impotent.
So, to use a tool (the camera) out of context is faulty and is in some sense inappropriate. It is prudent to continually attempt to examine our bias, agendas and perspective. These words are easy to type but the idea is difficult to achieve. The expression, “if all you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail;” applies all through our ways of thinking. If we perceive a bolt to be a nail, we might drive it in with a hammer, but it will fasten much better than a nail by twisting it into a nut, no hammer even relevant. We have a different way of seeing within the same utility.