Pure Conceptuality

 

 

Chapter 11: The Stage is Set

 

In this presentation of Pure Conceptuality we pose Grand General Perspectives and then focus in on the rational supports for the Proposition. We may shock the sensibilities while showing over and over that the propositions are supported by consistent, whole and integrative rationale.  

 

After seeing videos 10a and 10b there should be some dawning sense that the simple approach we have taken allows us the beginnings of an awareness of the oct-tet field or matrix. Remember this is technically known as the Isotropic Vector Matrix, where Isotropic means “everywhere the same” in terms of dimensional relatedness. This is the Equilibrium State where all motion or energy can be seen to be accommodated and neutral.  This is the Absolute Zero state of Universe.  There are other manifestations or perspectives on the Matrix Field which we will demonstrate later, but this is the only one that is Isometric and Isotropic and at rest. The way we have approached this conceptual image satisfies and integrates the inherent complementarity observed in math and also rationally integrates the observer as “co-inhabitant” of the field.  We do not create the field, it resolves itself as the  Universal substructure of the manifest and the “unmanifest” (simultaneous potential) in a priori consciousness or manifest being. We contend that this matrix is the blueprint of consciousness itself. We, as self conscious entities do not normally experience the simultaneous potential directly but the fact of it allows us free will and the non contradictory and integrative nature of “all possible futures” coming out of simultaneous self conscious choice of the other and the self. We will see how the idea of “Parallel Universe” is simply how the Universe accommodates self consciousness and choice.

 

If the mind demands a concept for a “beginning,” here is the best that can be proffered.  Try to think generally about all that we have discovered in opening our eyes to the symbol-character nature of the stopped time models that have presented themselves. These characters or natures are self revealing, self reconciling and self resolving and are universal and eternal in principle. Examining relationship in stopped time allows us to imagine the “click-stop” nature of the Dimensional Integrities infused in, permeating and organizing the oct-tet field. This “organizing” is not powered from below or above; nor organized out of chaos but rather precipitates out of the universal intelligence represented by the inherent design and order built in to consciousness itself. Each character with its characteristics which develop and present sequentially in our presentation could be imagined to all be possible simultaneously conceptually outside of time. Any conceptual space is dense with unlimited potential as there exists an unlimited number of locations in any space. The Prime Constant with the implied tuning in, tuning out or harmonizing (you choose) resultant order rationalizes and permits experience. It does not matter what the Constant seems to be from any particular perspective. That it is, is the essence. In other words the potentials are all existent fully developed. For us, linear time sequences all experience blocking out the simultaneity which can be imagined when using the appropriate tools. If we must imagine a “starting” the best we can do is realize that each character and its characteristics, including each of us, and every atom and cell are always in the middle of what they are. We can see or imagine transformation but every frame is like a movie and not really continuous.

 

Ultimately, we must accept that everything that we experience is at least slightly in the past. If we try to find the “present” logically we end up just splitting the distance or time fourever in trying to get there.

We are trapped between what we experience and imagine as the past and what we imagine and project as the future. The tools of Pure Conceptuality allow us a view in stopped time of the general and eternal structural truth, language and principles which permeate the nature of the past and the future. The “present” is the eternal creative essentials at play in potential. So, realistically we do not need to look for a beginning as all time and all potential is sandwiched between the past and the future. This is a very neat and complete solution to essential questions which does not require rocket science to comprehend. If we can rest securely in a faith and understanding that the future is imminent and real and logically unquestionable, it should be just as obvious that the present can not be experienced but is still describable and understandable in some terms. We are showing you the terms here.

 

We realize this is a lot to “swallow” but we are not suggesting Belief. We have confidence in the realizations, rational revelations and resolutions which result from this approach.  Above we mentioned the Absolute Zero state of Universe in concept as represented by the oct-tet matrix. Here we propose that the Prime character of the field can be understood to be Energy in potential (en potentia). The Prime Tet, which can only be imagined as Prime is conceptually minimum, perfect and complete. It is the most basic symbol-character-word of which the field is simply repetition (multiplication by division) of the Prime conceptually  inhabiting allspace. This is not simplistic as we will see but it is essentially a fact. One of the GREATS (probably Newton) insisted that Energy would eventually be understood and modeled mechanically as momentum. We are making a big leap here, but considering all we have shown and investigated  we can imagine ALL ENERGY of Universe to be conceptually “contained” in the Conceptual Primacy.  Further this concept rationally conserves all energy while allowing for the conceptual  expression of that energy “four-ever.” Division of “infinite” Potential does  not “use up” or diminish the Potential.  The Absolute Zero state holds all Potential in Equilibrium. That equilibrium is timeless, motionless and pregnant with potential. We have already seen how the Singularity is simultaneously, conceptually, the two frequency Tet exchanging structure with the one frequency octahedron. This can be imagined in retrospect to be transformation and creation as eight one unit Tets and one four unit octahedron are inherent. This is a twelve folding of the Singularity and there is no conceptual limit to the conceptually contained “increase” or multiplication by division. The one frequency octahedron is dual by its nature and character, unlike the conceptual one frequency triangle and the conceptual one frequency Tet, It cannot be modeled to show the complimentary nature or right-leftness of the octahedron. We just have to realize its synchronous duality while also realizing that the one frequency (AB unit) Octahedron is a Prime character in holistic conceptual imagining.  We will show how all of this “plays” as we move along.  The kinetic energy of what we perceive as matter is expressed in the tensional character and relational tethering as most prime, conceptually in the AB stopped time visualization. This conceptual tethering is a result of the discontinuous nature of  experienced time against the continuous nature of gravity.  In Pure Conceptuality, Gravity and Time are the same character. We can feel this tensional energy when we twirl a rock in a slingshot. The relatively stationary twirler represents the “continuous gravity” while the rock is in discontinuous motion expressing and storing kinetic energy. We know that atoms and molecules are in motion always when perceived consciously. The tied up kinetic energy is expressed in “phase shifts” which are conceptually geometric “click stops” of transformation. Ten pounds of ice at 32 degrees has many times more cooling capacity than ten pounds of water at 33 degrees. Energy is contained in the phase shift of the geometry in the resistance to transformation of ice into water. It is interesting to realize that for us Einstein's realization that E=MC squared is a perfect statement of our contention that EVERYTHING (Equilibrium and its potential) = Unity (singularity) x  C (one to the second power) = Unity. We are using here the realization mentioned earlier in the writing that d=rt where rate is one and time is one and distance is one.  In this case the “squaring” or second powering in Einstein's equation alludes to the Dimensional Integrities (expressed as second powering) in Pure Conceptuality.   Of course this is a “stretch,” but the point is that we have a Universe which is BOTH-AND.  It is perfectly reasonable to just state mathematically; 1=1 times1to the second power. Obviously if we change the numerical values on the right side, the left must reflect the result of the applied processes. That does not mean that the first solution is not “correct.”

 

The objective here is to see a “bigger” or more inclusive totality without invalidating another perspective.  Let's go back to the AB to get our bearings.  Think of the AB as a rope of length one, and further put that rope through a hole in a wall. All of a sudden that rope starts disappearing into that hole   and the instinct is to hold on and try to pull back. We pull hard enough to stop the rope from continuing into the hole. We see and feel the rope tensed going into the hole and assume something similar must be happening on the other side of the wall.  When we pull hard it just seems that that pull is matched so we enlist some help from our husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother and on down the line.  On the other side of the wall the same thing is happening. Isn't this pretty much how things go? If we could see the big picture a Universe of more interesting possibilities opens up. We could even choose to just engage this athletic endeavor as sport after it was comprehended. We could exchange sides, players and engage other missions using all of the assets of each rather than “forcing” everyone into the same relatively futile reactive urge to pull back.  Generally what happens is someone becomes expert on rope,. another on angular forces and another on nutrition and condition etc. and the contest continues.  We looked at the whole scene and went to the AB  because we want to understand the NATURE of the WHOLE THING and let that Nature inform us directly.  We must be very careful not to take our particular social languages too seriously.  The extent of our imaginations is to turn an amazing dance into nouns. Honestly, after a dance is complete the dancer and the dance DISAPPEAR! There is no WORD for this idea. The language we describe in Conceptuality is of form-symbol-message as content and context. The themes are primal and elemental applying perfectly well, yet do not disappear into complexity. Any authority we have is self evident in the application of the tool. The insights we explore in Pure Conceptuality do not negate the specialized developments in math physics, astronomy and cosmology, but rather open  up vistas to be appreciated in an even more grand and spectacular way. All of the stories we weave are enhanced by a realization of the nature of the structure which allows for the creation, STOR-age of, and interaction of any number of stories.  Each one of us is IDENTICAL in the being-ness we share essentially. The NAME we put on that being-ness, David, Debra or Jack is the signal of our uniqueness which is specific to our story while the CONCEPT of uniqueness itself is SINGULAR. All seeming plurality is transformation of singularity. In Conceptuality we show these transformations and at the same time see the general information and specific themes displayed as self evident.

 

It is important to examine our experience in a whole way. Consensus Reality is the average of human experience but there are some un-noticed characteristics throughout. There is a hierarchy of opinion with an ultimate acceptance of authority imposed by the ultimate authority itself. We realize this has always been so in any conception of how things were, how things are and how things will be. We describe the past in terms of the reigning authority as we imagine it and we accept in the present that there are those who know more than we and we project the future of an ever increasing knowledge and truth based on the trajectory of the arrow already shot. We don't examine or consider the arrow in stopped time. If we do that we see the arrow as the AB and all the rest disappears.

 

We dangerously accept some things that seem obvious and common sense. In the West we have moved the natural human process of childbirth into the realm of disease and medicine without really thinking about it in a whole way. As a result, we have no idea of the overall statistic in terms of  the norm of the true statistical risk of natural childbirth in a healthy population. There is a tremendous potential for overall health of a population. If we try to examine statistics in the area of childbirth the endeavor is rendered pointless. If we look at doctor assisted births we must realize that cases with complications are dumped out of the natural birth statistic into the doctor assisted. If we try to examine statistically how many healthy women might be fine with natural birth, we must realize the pressure from the medical side not to “risk” it. Many women who are adamant in their own minds to do it naturally are bullied in the end into the medical setting as the doctors have many reasonable pressures and agendas set by the nature of the consensus reality and all of the considerations of the reality constructed in such a way.  The fear of lawsuits and even the convenience for the doctor in planning the timing of a natural process or simply hurrying things up with drugs or even caesarian section.  It is impossible to establish a frame for the examination of such a confused and complex system. There are too many special interests, but in court Authority of some kind will prevail, rational or not. This is to the detriment of doctors and patients and society itself in one of the most primary and necessary human activities. Consequently we are all born into an experience directed by “risk aversion” which seems common sense but with no real basis at all. The medical method may have more actual risk. The remainder of our lives are colored by this and we do not question it carefully or fairly. Is this OK, really?

 

The same is true for Cancer. We know for certain that every kind of cancer is documented by medical science to have abated or disappeared in some patients. We know that as a medical fact. We don”t know how or why. This is most often described and dismissed as”miraculous.”   It doesn't fit the system in general. We know that cancer cells are not invaders but rather our own cells losing track of their proper presentation in the scheme of things. We know that sometimes this malfunction corrects itself. We don't know why and we don't know how often this happens in the lifetime of any person. The only cancers we can statistically relate to are discovered cancers. Once cancer is discovered it moves “logically and rationally” into the medical realm. First of all it is named and then prodded and poked and focused on as an alien growth that has to be treated and destroyed at any cost to the host. We are shamed into acting “responsibly” by authority which is reflected in our doctors, friends and families as we are all submerged in the “consensus reality.” We are not suggesting that we throw out the baby with the bathwater in consideration of any of these things. We are just opening up the discussion realistically while insisting we can do better than status quo while pointing out that status quo is guaranteed if we accept the trajectory of the arrow and support the authoritative truth with an unaltered approach. In the medical approach, we notice that cancer is statistically looming larger and larger. We don't consider that we are responsible for the story and then get into an anecdotal blame game about “environmental” factors while not considering the environment of the consensus reality itself. We fail to examine fully as, frankly, we never have. We always stop short.

 

We are HERETICS if we even consider re-examining the obviousness or even “proof” of the theory of evolution as understood in common sense supported by scientific authority. We almost tremble here to present a different view. In Pure Conceptuality, we must consider all we have developed and shown about our lack of understanding of time. Consensus Reality embraces the foundation of linear time which has no scientific firmament at all separate from the calculations and thinking which automatically include it as linear and universally measurable, which it is not. Consensus realities put us in a box of sorts. They do not tend to point out to us that we should be examining the box itself. We are always talking about thinking outside the box, but if we try that we are simply in another box. Here we examine the BOX in terms of form, symbol, function, message, content and context. In other words the Universal Language itself. Evolution as commonly understood is an UNRAVELING in time from the top down (present to past) and then is misunderstood as a GATHERING in time from the bottom up (past to present). The “error” is really that simple. This is not to invalidate all of the work and “facts” but rather to point out an unresolved aspect of consensus reality which is ASSUMED by any educated and intelligent person as being resolved and further is used without real consideration in studying and building authoritatively and logically in thinking about almost everything else. This is extremely debilitating. From the perspective of Pure Conceptuality this is Ignore-ance.  Projecting experiential and local time onto the Universe is an extension of flat earth thinking. The Whole of anything cannot be considered at all from that perspective. If you can't get past this, you are in DEEP DO DO! It is not possible to intelligently consider Dark Energy or the “measureable” expansion of the Universe from the perspective of an ardent evolutionist. This will become clear as we move along in the modeled study.

 

We are indebted to Dustin from Mind Unleashed for his exposition of his experience with the reversed steering bicycle. Briefly this is a bicycle made by his mechanics as a joke or trick bike geared to steer in the reverse of a normal bicycle. The Jokers reversed the obvious. They presented this bike to Dustin and asked him to ride it.  That turned out to be impossible in the short run. It took eight months of practice for five minutes a day to achieve it and longer to master it. His six year old son mastered a similar bike of his size in two weeks. He had been riding bikes for a couple of years. Both had to UNLEARN normal biking to relearn in a new way. Unlearning was required and it took much more effort, patience and desire than the original learning.  When Dustin tried to ride a normal bike it took twenty minutes to relearn how to ride but it happened in an “aha” moment. It probably took about twenty minutes to learn to ride a bike the first time he learned to ride and as we recall in our own lives with bikes, you can ride or not in a “moment.” Dustin concluded from this experience that – knowledge is not understanding – we are rigid in our ways of thinking and just wanting to is not sufficient for actual change (new skill) – practice is necessary to re-designate bias. Being an engineer, he described and analyzed this experience in terms of algorithms as “common sense” to him.

 

There is a lot to be investigated and learned (unlearned) here. Unlearning on a bike is complicated by the necessity to balance in order to achieve the task or even practice the task. If you crash immediately the chance to be positively re-enforced in continuous bits of achievement is broken by the fall out of balance. We don't know from Justin's experiment how difficult it would be for a young or older person to learn to ride the reverse bike without experience of the normal bike.  If it consistently takes longer statistically, as it probably would, we would wonder why. The algorithm analogy is an expression of an engineers bias. It assumes a self conscious being computes and operates by mathematical calculations unconsciously and must find or develop the algorithm by trial and error that “works.” This assumption overwhelms the whole observation and makes what is profound seem silly. Our use of language in telling stories is full of such unconscious biases.  We might even put all of these biases (consensus reality) into a general category of unconsidered deceptions.  This sounds terrible on the surface  but it is possible that integrity (holistic truth) can be teased out from a background of deception when we have enough information and have done enough consideration, contemplation and investigation to realize the trick or see the joke of self deception.

 

Older folks in the northern climes of the U.S. remember the Flexible Flier sled. It has a crossbar that is pushed by the feet if sitting or by the arms if lying face down on the sled. If we wanted to go right we pushed the left foot or left arm. We could see the runners twisting to the right or left opposite to our push and we felt the turn and leaned in to it and all was very natural. By pushing out the left foot we naturally “crumpled” the right and naturally leaned right into the turn. Many boys of that era made “soap box cars” out of a few boards, four wheels and a couple of axles of round rod. We can imagine a five foot  2X12 plank with a 3 foot 2X4 crossbar nailed at the back. The axle was nailed on the 2x4 with large bent over nails and the wheels added. The same axle attachment was repeated for the front 3 foot front 2X4 but it was attached to the 2X12 with a bolt through the center of the axeled  2X4 through the front center of the 2X12 and then front wheels attached. This basic running board could be embellished with a seat and whatever else the imagination could come up with. Now the thing was steered by the feet in exactly the same way as the sled and it felt very natural. Horse drawn wagons steered in the same way, actually by the horses pulling naturally in the direction they were directed by the driver.  This kind of steering was automatic considering the geometry of the simplest and most common sense self evident solution. When the whole axle rotated the inside wheel in a turn naturally tracked a smaller circle than the outside wheel making a perfectly coordinated turn.  Once stationary axles were introduced in the front of vehicles and the wheels were made to rotate on the ends of the front axle it was realized that the inside wheel had to turn more than the outside wheel and this had to be accommodated in the design. It was not so simple any more.  I doubt if anyone thought much about how a wagon turned so efficiently until someone tried independently turning wheels.

Airplanes are steered absolutely on the ground right and left by the feet.  In the air the feet steer in coordination with the hands on the “stick.” So in an airplane to turn left the left foot is pushed and that is opposite to the sled and soap box car. For a person programmed with sleds and push cars, it is un-natural at first to steer an airplane. You can put a steering wheel on a bike and it is natural to turn left to go left. In the airplane one quickly adapts to the coordination of steering left with the wheel or stick while pushing left with the foot.. We can assume that it would not take eight months to master the backward steering bike if it was a three wheeler that did not fall over with every mistake. Then the transition to the two wheeler would be easier.  It would still be “unnatural” as the leaning in would have to be learned rather than just falling into place.  

 

All of this is to suggest that there might be some natural standards of design that fit with tendencies of us. The reverse steering bike is wrong no matter what “algorithm” (actual practice) achieves the task.  In fact there is a universal language of design. The self conscious being learns by doing through the senses of sight, sound, touch, smell, balance and hearing. When a sensitive soaring sailplane pilot smells an earthy scent he knows instantly he is in an updraft thermal. Of course his sensitive rate of climb instrument tells him the same thing but not so instantly. An un-sensitive pilot, always depending on the gauge, may never notice the smell! Without the noise of an engine a sailplane pilot can judge his speed  by the sound resulting from his movement through the air. As we learn from repetition and practice as conscious beings we must be making a point to “forget” that we are calculating this in mathematics. If we were to make a computer (engineer it) to become sentient as we are, it would also have to forget that it is calculating and  it would have to include temperature, sound, sight, smell and sense of balance (response to gravity and centrifugal force) and the feeling of being in touch.  Suppose all that was possible to mimic with sensors, soft skin and programming, and it was all integrated in such a way to be indistinguishable from sentient being, it would still be a calculator processing terabytes of calculations simultaneously to achieve the task. We contend it would still be mimicry as the architecture is distinct from the consciousness architecture of the organic engineers who cooperated to manufacture it.

 

If we are understanding science properly, science states that the human brain is the most complicated structure in the Universe. This is stated quite literally. From science perspective this includes the multitudes in the stars and galaxies expressed in trillions etc.  We find this difficult to conceive, but also wonder what RELATIONSHIP in these statements or comparison is imagined. If we accept from science that there is very little matter involved in the almost unimaginable complexity of us, or the Universe for that matter (pun intended) what are we examining in both cases? In Pure Conceptuality we would imagine that we are using the senses in examining our being.  We are using our story telling self conscious being to describe generally THE BEING that we experience to be ones self and the other by extension. If, indeed, the person and brain are the most complicated system in Universe our impression of it is a reflection and unlike the Universe described by cosmologists and astronomers, it is LOCAL and somehow tangible as in the five senses. Further there are at least five billion of these entities on the earth, each with local purposeful communication capacities internally cell to cell and system to system with each surpassing the connectivity of the entire world wide web. Even though we might feel humble about our capabilities, logic would hint to us that we (seeming conscious entities) might be in some sense communally the generators and experiencers of time and story in and out of phase simultaneously with all possibility.   We will see in our study of matrix theory how all things are possible at once while still being totally organized in concept.

 

We can use a wrench as a hammer but we cannot use a hammer as a wrench.