[A continuation (and attempted clarification) of the original thought-process from my previous post The 'Sensation' Of Being Stared At and my “Collapsing The Consciousness Wave” theory within, incorporating ITLAD and CTF]We all use it; we all think we know what it is; but where is the Internet?
This blog for instance: All of us merrily skip here to frolic in the cerebral carnival of consciousness, but where is it; where do we go to get here?
Now, consider Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity), which allows us to connect to the Internet wirelessly. The Internet is a waveform, all around us, and if we have a Laptop or a PC that is Wi-Fi enabled then our computer can collapse the waveform of the Internet and produce a particle of the Internet within our system.
Within this particle of the Internet that is your computer, you store memories (downloaded content), experiences (website history) and personality (bookmarks of favourite sites) which you can access and revisit every time you use it.
So, in effect, our computer collapses the waveform of the Internet and creates a particle of the Internet within it, which is then subjective and useable by us to store our memories, experiences and personality. Then, by using email and chat facilities, we can form Quantum Entanglements with other computers, other particles of the Internet, and these entanglements interact on the objective wave of the Internet, which is everywhere.
Therefore, I posit this as analogous to how Consciousness works within my theory:
"We are all of one consciousness," (the Internet wave)
"but experiencing itself subjectively," (Internet on our computers)
"as collapsed particles of consciousness," (our computer)
"from the objective consciousness field waveform." (the Internet)
Our Daemon in this example is therefore our Cache (that part of our computer that stores previous web-pages for faster access) so when we revisit sites we have prior knowledge of previous experiences.
Can I ask my fellow ITLADists -
Do you think my Internet/Wi-Fi/Computer analogy helps explain my “Collapsing The Consciousness Wave” theory in more accessible and personably understandable language?
A Dark Philosopher
Karl L Le Marcs
81 comments:
I post this as attempt to bring my theory clearer to mind, in which I incorporate Tony's CTF and ITLAD plus my own Virgin Life, Misallignment of The Bohmian IMAX, Peakeian Daemonology, The Mandalay Effect and other ITLADic theories into one Theory Of Consciousness.
Oh, this is excellent to ponder; also raises questions which facilitate debate, so right there is very much to be endorsed. I wish I could do more justice, and will do so later, when I am not so hard-pressed, but for now:
The analogy is excellent; it incorporates and extends Tony's own references to technology (i.e., DVD, VCR, IMAX) which has been a strong suit with him, and has won him admiration (especially from philosopher-techies and readers of Steinhart). . . ) This Internet analogy is very clean, very concise, can appeal at once to the general reading public, and also to those who are obsessed with technological advance in its import on the human condition. . . Very good, excellent. This may be the central thesis: the crux or nexus around which the other theories can gather as sub-sets. Very appealing already. . . I truly believe you have hit on the thesis, and it's title, it is in there somewhere ( the title). I am blogging extremely badly today as I am in some sort of haze, and yet this is very pleasing, very exciting, even. And an extension of all that has gone before: grab it, before someone else lays hold of this very idea; that's my advice. It firms up all, extends from where Tony departed in ITLAD, makes his own theory even clearer. This is a vital and dynamic concept, not static: I can see all forms of analogies and extensions going all different ways. Excellently thought and spoken; well, well done. Very clean and tight, too - no baggy-monster thesis to rework. OK, I'll stop rambling now. . .
Susan Marie: Thank You very much for your comments.
Your thoughts are always illuminating and welcome and in this analogy I hope to make my theory contemporary and fundamentally graspable by everyone, regardless of knowledge into Quantum Physics, Neurology or Consciousness Studies.
I'm glad you feel there is value in me including this in my full theory.
Thank You.
I think Karl would thoroughly enjoy reading up on a book by one of my Favourite Author's/theorists:
Simulacra and Simulation By Jen Baudrillard. You can read most of it here i think.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9Z9biHaoLZIC&dq=baudrillard+simulacra&pg=PP1&ots=3KQ59ZbtoU&sig=FcVwwd-KCWoA7fkH8DS3u4HkPbg&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search%3Fhl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd%3D1%26q%3Dbaudrillard%2Bsimulacra%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail
Hurlyburly: Thank you Martin. Yes, I do quote a few examples of Jean Baudrillard in my full theory which is steadily getting much longer!!!
But do you think this analogy helps bring my theory into better understanding???
"Oooh they have the internet on computers now" - Homer Simpson.
I was intending to write a more substantial post later on sir, wanted to take my time responding ( = let others get it wrong first!)
It is a great example of information being transmitted in waves and how willing we are to just accept it with little questioning of what's actually happening.
I did go through this analogy with Tony briefly during our last pub-craw.....er, ITLADic meeting (a few weeks ago), when we were trying to get our Laptops to find the Wi-Fi signal in Liverpool Wetherspoons.
I hope Tony will say a few of things here that he said on the day regarding my analogy both within my theory and CTF/ITLAD.
Ooops just saw that typo!
Look, he really is one of my favourites. Cool memories which is like a diary of random thoughts (he published several volumes) is probably one of my favourite books of all time!
Damn Keyboard! Damn damn double damn wiht a side order of damn!
Jean!
*jumps up and down at own acheivement!*
Was swamped in post-modernism crap written by the great man while i was at uni. For some reason i always associate him with Polanski!
*giggles at Homer*
I'm glad you think it is a workeable analogy Martin, thank you. I can explain my theory in deeply Quantum terms but that would be understandable to a minority whereas by making analogies like this I hope to bring it to everyone.
Typos are great! I initially wondered if JEN was Jean Baudrillard's wife (well would have served him right for having a girl's name and being French)
*smiles in jest*
I'll add him to our list of stuff to talk about in dear old London Town. If you can get to Camden in a couple of weeks, we can have the Southern meeting of ITLADists in the Cuban Bar where I meet Rachael in my Lucid Dreams (The Rachael Story)
I'll look forward to it sir, in fact, i'm off now to purchase a shiney new gun! ;)
And I thought you were just pleased to see me!!!
Karl: Wonderful analogy. My only question would be where does the person clicking the mouse fit in? The Eidolon?
RAC: Thank You Robert, yeah interesting question which is hard to answer without entering Theology!
Tim Berners-Lee = God perhaps!
*smile*
Good analogy Karl. Good question RAC. Great digs Martin. Great rambling SM.
I would like to add some more thoughts, and don't want to ramble, so will see if I can make my words obey; my thoughts tend to race when I am seized as I am now, by a new idea. In terms of Baudrillard: He is so French, so anti-American, anti-technocracy, and altogether nihilistic. Yet this idea, presented here, strikes me as very American, in all ways, in the sense of a fortiori, not to crack the phrase again, but this has solid reason on it's side. I cannot help thinking of certain Americans in academia right now, such as Steinhart, who is grappling with somewhat similar ideas, defending them beautifully, but has somehow missed this essential idea. One of my first impressions of Tony was that he was American in his thinking; and there are Peakian ideas afoot, and I must foray back into the fray as I hate to be removed at this time from the center of portent action. Not only do I see Tony strengthened and extended hereby, but I see that this idea as it's own book to America must go: it will fly here, and fly well. . . I have long wanted to introduce myself and Tony's book to Steinhart, and may actually have to do so, and treks to NYC and Provincetown seem very appealing; I may have to get moving. Very sorry to ramble on in so disjointed and manic a manner. The analogy is so sound, so pure, it ought to be copyrighted before it is lost to the many who are right at this point, but just missing it. En avant, my watchword in all things timely, and this evokes it. . . Cannot seem to write today, and sorely disappointed that I can't do justice now. I have long had my own obsession with the fusion of philosophy, technology, and the spirit realm : this led me to Tony. . . This is an advance, surely , very pleasing to see these things in the making. . .
Ra from Ca: Ah Ruth! Thank You. We are somewhat like one big happy but ultimately dysfunctional family aren't we?
*smiles and group hugs*
SM:
I would be very pleased if I could ramble as well as you.
Susan Marie:
I agree with you Dear Lady, America seems to have a dichotomy. It has Scientist who are scourned for having Spiritualist ideas and Spiritualists who are discouraged form practicing any scientific research.
What is needed is some pioneer who can blend the two!!!
Thank You.
In your analogy Karl is death like a computer breakdown and you need to recover files, or is it just turning off the power.
This makes sense for those who think they have past lives. Have they just stolen somebody else's identity?
Yes, I think I like this analogy.
Well, I hope my point was well-taken, that I do see your and Tony's ideas as this vehicle to a fusion of the 2 realms which are fighting for expression, but separately, within US academia. . . I am not one to meddle usually, but this is a "pet idea" close to my own heart. I think owing to my ancestry, I have a peculiar American bias, and even see in your idea the multiplicity and pragmatism of William James, but brought up to 21st century technology. I hope my other remarks, and these here, have emphasized that I am truly in admiration, and very enthused.
RA: My rambling has often gotten me in trouble in philosophical meetings, as well as various and sundry other places: not truly enviable, but thank you!
Ra from Ca: Ruth, good question. I would say in this analogy of my theory (incorporating CTF) that Death is akin to closing the lid of the laptop and turning off. The power is still within the system and when you reboot the computer the memories, experiences and personality of your last time using it are still there.
Where my theory splits from CTF in that I don't see the recurrences as being ETERNAL, but finite in number (that number however being very very large) as Space-Time cannot be infinitely sub-divided.
So at the end of what I term the Ultimate Life (that LAST run-through when the Daemon and Eidolon have merged at the Daemon has no need for the Eidolon nor to record the life as there in no space-time left in which to present a replay) then it is akin to the computer breaking down and having to be recycled as I suggest at the end of our Ultimate Life we therefore lose sentience and once no longer observing empirical input we un-collapse our particle of consciousness and it ascends back to the Consciouness Field and the Akashic Records, to mix freely with all other consciousnesses and perhaps be then collapsed again in a new form by a newly born sentience. Thus our subjective life is run many, many, many times over but objectively we never die as part of us is always within part of others. For when a computer dies and can no longer access the internet wave, the internet itself is unaffected, and so I assert is ultimate objective consciousness. We are just one particle of the wave.
Hope this helps, and I'm glad you like my analogy and that you've proven it works because of the question you asked.
I find Karl's analogy clear and concise yet leaving me wondering where daemonic influences come from if it's mearly the cache for memories.
(please excuse my misspellings and typos, I still rubbing the sleep from my eyes) *smiles*
Are we allowed to upgrade? I could use a faster processor and more memory for sure. However I am hesitant to go with the new operating system due to its lengthy learning curve.
Robin: Hello Robin, how is Oaklahoma today?
Now, to your intriguing question:
As the Daemon is that part of subjective consciousness that has lived your life before, in my analogy to my theory here I would say that when we access the internet and then turn off our computers, the next time we access the internet our computer 'knows' we have accessed the internet before and thus opens previously viewed pages faster; provides us with bookmarks of favourite website; holds memories of our downloaded content etc.
So I assert this is how Daemonic Influences could be included in my analogy as in consciousness once we enter a recurrence of our life our Daemon also 'knows' it has accessed not merely subjective consciousness before, but also objective field-based consciousness.
Good question Robin, and I hope I have provided a useful analogy for you.
RAC: HA!HA! Robert, you have provided me with the first laugh of the day (which given the day I'm having is a considerable achievement).
Good Man!
If my computer cache stores information about good & bad websites and has the ability to warn or guide me to or away from events that I may or may not benefit from, then I can see the cache as an analogy for the daemon. Does my computer's cache do all of this?
Robin: Yes it can do, very much so. If you have certain software installed like Cyber Nanny or similar that when you visit a site if you do not want that site appearing again you can block it or set cookie levels etc. This is analogous to Daemonic guidance as the next time you access the internet (your next life) you will be protected from certain things, others made more easily accessible and your whole experience guided.
But my main purpose of the analogy was to explain how I see Consciousness working and especially the subjective nature of our experiences which do ultimately also belong to the objective nature of consciousness.
The laptop has a particle of the internet as we have a particle of consciousness. The Internet Particle exists on the Internet Wave and our Consciousness Particle exists on the Consciousness Wave or Akashic Records/Objective Consciouness Field/Information Universe etc etc
As David Bohm suggested, the one "IN-FORMS" the other.
That is a lovely way to use 'inform', really.
Yes, yes Karl, yes. Your analogy does wonders for the layperson's understanding. I was just throwing some constructive criticism your way to have you expand on the cache as daemon idea...you gotta have the software installed. <3
Susan Marie: Thank You but it is David Bohm's word usage so I can't take credit.
Here is a link to a fabulous paper written by Ervin Laszlo, writer of a book I think EVERYONE interested in CTF/ITLAD and my theory should read entitled "Science And The Akashic Field"
The In-Formation Field Hypothesis
Robin: Thank you muchly, your constructive criticism is always welcomed, that is how ideas evolve through dialectical dialogue.
And for 'software' I would say evolution of perception and experience. In your PC you would install software to help the next time you access the internet. In 'life' you would perceptively evolve your observations and install new methods of life-coping to help the next time you access a recurrence through the Bohmian IMAX.
Bravo!
*jumps up and down for quite literal joy*
When we are asleep, are we, as the computer, on standby, but still connected to the Internet on our computer and therefore the Internet wave? Would this explain dreams?
Johar: Hi JoJo, yes BINGO!
As particles of consciousness we have subjective memories and experiences, desires, wants and all that, but when we sleep (or alter any other reduced state of empirical input such as meditative or those induced by pharmaceutical measures etc) then we interract with the consciousness wave more readily, thus dreams and altered states of consciousness allow us to surf another Internet analogy there) on the wave of objective universal consciousness.
Excellent question, thank you. I hope my answer helps and it is gratifying to see you grasp the analogy and be contemplating the deeper areas of my theory.
Ok, One more for clarification, is the Internet on out computer what makes us sentient beings?
Johar: Not quite no.
My Internet/WiFi analogy is to help explain what happens to consciousness when it is observed by sentience!
In my anology the laptop/computer is the sentient being to the Internet Wave as I assert that WE as sentient beings, collapse the Objective Wave of Consciousness so does the laptop/computer collapse the objective wave of the Internet both thus creating subjective particles which are then used by us.
Sorry,
Disjointed, trying to work my way through: Aren't 1 and 4 of your analogy the same thing?
1) We are all of one consciousness,(the Internet wave)
4)The objective Consciousness field waveform." (the Internet)
Thanks for the clarification regarding the sentient being, I've had trouble getting my head around that before. This really is an excellent analogy and user friendly for the masses!
Well done Karl!
Johar: "Aren't 1 and 4 of your anology the same thing?
1) We are all of one consciousness,(the Internet wave)
4)The objective Consciousness field waveform." (the Internet)"
Yes, although part 4 is actually FROM the objective Consciousness field waveform which is where the wave form that has been collapsed by sentience was before observation, hence the circular arguement.
I assert that we are indeed all of one consciousness which exists on the objective consciousness waveform which we then collapse (in Neils Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics terminology) and create particles of such by our sentient observation. The laptop collapses the objective wave of the Internet and creates a subjective particle within itself in the same way.
Thank you for your comments and approval of my analogy JoJo, my aim in everything is to be user friendly to the masses.
*smile*
To clarify the full quote from my theory in its original form.....
"We are all one consciousness, but experiencing itself subjectively, as collapsed particles of consciousness from the objective consciousness field waveform."
Yes, just have to give a quick agreement to Johar's last sentences: That is its beauty, it's power, and will be it's appeal to the American mass market (and I have often felt that ITLAD itself has not really yet hit it's stride in that sense either): and there is also a secret animus contained within, which will appeal to all high-brow scientists with leanings for the new and innovative, and the dynamic and the yielding; thus will the 2 camps be bridged, and what a misfortune if they are not.
Susan Marie: Thank You!
I'm finding it difficult to agree with anything less than your entire last comment in its entirety!
*smile*
Excellent well said!
'I suggest at the end of our Ultimate Life we therefore lose sentience and once no longer observing empirical input we un-collapse our particle of consciousness and it ascends back to the Consciousness Field and the Akashic Records, to mix freely with all other consciousnesses and perhaps be then collapsed again in a new form by a newly born sentience.'
Cool, I made the suggestion of a division of lives in a post in Feb regarding Thompson's lamp and also the idea of a newly formed sentience. (Obviously didn't put it as well or present it as coherently as Karl!)
Am pleased I'm grasping some of this!
Karl,
Do you attest that the objective consciousness field and the Akashic Records are different terms for essentially the same theory?
Johar:
*smiles at being quoted myself back to me*
I'm glad you mention Thomson's Lamp, which I also commented on within the original posts:
Tony's original post "Zeno's Bisection Paradox - A New Angle"
Johar's follow-up post "Thomson's Lamp"
Which are both worth re-reading with the comments where I go into why Thompson's Lamp and Zeno's Bisection Paradox fall down as suggestions of infinite subdivisibility owing to quanta of time and Cantor's infinities.
Finally Johar, regarding your Akashic Records question. The Akashic Records exist WITHIN the objective consciousness field so there is a subtle difference in the terminology of the two.
CHEERS ME DEAR!,
Thanks for the explanations!!
*skips of merrily knowing I'll have to reread it all again tomorrow - HI-HO!!*
Wonderful Post Karl!!!After I asked you in your last Post if you had Google Search engine as your brain, I thought of analogies all day but would have been unable to formulate them as well as you do!!
As newborns we are all ready to be *programmed* whether learning Japanese or Swahili.I think there was a book once called *Is God a Computer* well it seems entirely possible.Nature and the Seasons are certainly formed with SOME plan and mathematical formula ... why I never listened to scoffers who voice the *big bang and random miracles ...no god* theory. Although I do not believe in the bearded stern figure on high.
I sense you reaching for your Moderators Hat, so let me say YES I like this version even more than the last one!!!Very User-Friendly!!!
Jesamyn.
Johar: You're welcome.
I always try to help a damsel in distress (or that dress, they are all pretty)
*smile*
Grab a large glass of something to infuse you and enjoy the ride when re-reading!
Jesamyn: Hi Jez, thank you for your comments. Good point re Google yes, in my analogy then I wonder if the mind of the Ultimate Lifer does become google like!
*Hmmmm, ponders*
I have of course previously wondered if my ludicrous brain is just a result of voraciously reading and enquiring on anything and everything I could get my hands on for the last 37 years, but maybe it is actually from THOUSANDS of years of ITLADic recurrences!!!
Thank you again for your input Jez, I am glad my analogy seems to be effective at making people think about my theory and helps in making it accessible.
Am becoming fanatical. Karl, just confirm for me that I've got the fundamentals right.
We are all one consciousness, which is the Internet wave. As a sentient being which is the PC, we collapses a particle of the Internet wave creating a subjective life which is the Internet on our PC.
Ta DAAA!!
Johar: "Fanatical"!!!
Well we don't want that now, do we!
And yes you've got the fundamentals, now do you want me to give you the whole details???
*everybody runs screaming from the room*
*turns off lights and closes curtains until Karl stops knocking*
Well that's nice isn't it??
Here I am trying to bring meaning to the whole of existence and that is the response!
*smiles and then flounces off in my traditional manner*
Any excuse to flounce, Karl, you don't need much incentive! LOL
A fact known very well to those that know me!
But I do it with panache and Wildean frippery.
With a hint of the Lord Byron.
Susan Marie: Thank You Dear Lady, and with smatterings of others too.
I am a gestalt existentialism!
Excellent, then I needn't refrain from adding the Lord Alfred Douglass, too---and now I am done.
Susan Marie: The list is growing yes. All these luminaries that I drag along in my bonce all day!!! Thank You, I am flattery and honured to be even remotely associated with such Genius.
Strewth Guys! It seems that all the action on this blog takes place around the Witching Hour (BST). I trurn my back on the blog and goes absolutely ballistic!!
KARL: Yet again a fascinating analogy. What is great about this blog is that it seems to act as this wonderful notepad by which we can all free associate ideas and it is there to be read again later. Simply wonderful.
Tony: Thank You Sire!
And us ITLADian Ipssissimus types tend to frolic best around the Witching hour.
*smiles and does that Christopher Lee type swooshy movement with an overly elaborate cape*
Susan Marie: As one of our esteemed American correspondents on here can I ask you a question?
Do you think, given the dichotomy in the US at the moment between Science and Spirituality that my analogy would help bridge the gap and bring the concept of my theory to the Spiritualists without need of Science and to the Scientists without need for Spirituality?
Of course, we all know that ITLAD, CTF and my theory blend the two and more concepts together but they don't have to know that initially?
What do you think?
Well, this is my own opinion, about Tony's theories, and your own; I do know a thing or two about this, as it has long been a "pet" obsession of sorts with me. I think in terms of America, and academia here, the dichotomy concerns a sort of technologically savvy mass, yet given to a wild and disordered spirituality. The ranks of the really great scientists, especially in the Universities, who ought to be acting as guides, have turned away (with some disgust?) and have formed a sort of atheistic elite, bemused and scornful. My own sympathies tend to the latter, and my own father was a scientist, an author of future-studies texts and it is these that strike me as robust. They are highly nuanced in their thinking: they are the ones who are most ripe for a true spiritual advance and understanding; the "mass" group needs to be led, and are unruly and untutored both. This may sound like a radical departure from the democratic ideal, but I think it is sound at its core, I stand by it. But there is something missing and sorely lacking; some gap that is not being bridged. When I first came upon Tony (an essay of his on the internet) I felt a "quickening", as if "movement is now possible". It was intuitive. He struck me as "made for America" and I thought of a bog of mud, loosening up and moving. I have already spoken of my opinion of your incorporation of him, and two-fold advance from you both. I have said this openly to you, and to Tony. I believe in a vital and dynamic advance to break a static choke-hold , a block which must move starting in the Universities. If this sounds grandiose, remember that I am on the one hand the daughter of a scientist who was deeply concerned with bridging this gap; I also descend from Alcott and the New England Transcendentalists: you might say I was "born" to notice you and Tony, to be concerned about you. Yet I am woefully fearful of meddling. I have more, much more, to say at a later time.
I wanted to add - please bear in mind that I haven't slept in days so my thinking is hazy - the "where is the internet?" idea is very poised to help, it is a perfect advocate. I feel Tony's ITLAD (complemented by Daemon book) is brimming also with all sorts of "gap bridgers" : it never really reached its potential. If I could regain my former state in terms of finances and connections, I think I could see all of this flying, really flying: talk about "into the air"!!!
Karl: If you want to bridge that gap you must first resolve the Evolution/Creation (non)debate... and you know what they did to Sheldrake.
A good point, RAC. But there is much to the idea that these warring ideologies can thaw, melt, and resolve themselves into the fuusion, without lengthy debate. Some of them can of themselves wither away, I do believe. There is much that is appearance, mask; symptom, consequence, incident of the 2 camps wanting to be split.
Yes, and then there is this giant push towards a unified front in our popular media. Our children today are inundated with concepts of magic and the spiritual world. To borrow from an earlier quote:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck
That is an interesting and well spoken contribution. I sense a person who has been doing much thinking on these matters. Which is exactly what is needed always and everywhere, and particularly on a blog of this intense nature, where all are zealous thinkers, and should be so as comrades in arms. That Planck quote followed exactly on the heels of the point I made; very speedy of you! Thanks, RAC.
Susan Marie: Enormous THANK YOU for your wonderful reply to my question to you regarding the American mindset relating to the Scientific/Spiritual schism.
I agree with your words and your sentiment and hope we can collectively, or myself individually, can do something to bridge it soon.
RAC: Quoting Max Planck constantly eh?
*Quantum giggles once more*
Within the deeper (much deeper) writing I have done on my theory I do propose an answer to the Evolution/Creation question, which will surely open eyes wider than the Mexican Staring Frog has on being told something particularly alarming!!
And Sheldrake is a good example yes, I referenced his work in my original "The 'Sensation' Of Being Stared At" post (not the Mexican Staring Frog), and have also referenced him in my full theory. I know that Tony hopes to bring my theory and indeed this whole blog to his attention.
It is worth adding here that the reaction that Tony and I received to his ITLAD/CTF theory and also my own CtCw (Collapsing the Consciousness Wave) theory last evening from the Servants Of The Light was astonishing!!
And all of you, everyone, who has read Tony's book and has been a part of the development of my theory should take much personal pride in this.
I THANK YOU all, personally.
A Dark Philosopher
Karl L Le Marcs
Dear Mr. Lemarcs,
I have decided to give comments to you now since I was able to work up courage to post for Hurlyburly. I am 20 and since all my time is spent on US political theory I still don't know where I should firmly stand with quantum philosophy. But I do know it is important and I know brilliance when I see it. I have read all of your posts and I was never able to get done with your "Sensation of Being Stared At", I just kept going back to it and could not stay away. I don't have your experience or your expertise and I am not the kind of guy who talks a lot unless I can add something meaningful. I wish I could learn more about all the things you are an expert in but I can only read and take it in and be full of admiration. My mother is a philosopher so she helps me to work on understanding you and Hurly and Mr. Peake in that area. And I agree with the things she says and that your book is needed by us over here ( I do read quite a bit about American religion and spirituality because it drives our politics over here. and this I do on my own, not for my classes) and I know that quantum philosophy is the 21st century state of intellectual theory. One of my favorite books on political ideology is Michael Lind's Up From Conservatism and maybe you are part of that trend but with quantum science and technology. So men like you are the front guard. I wish I had more to say and when I am reading you I do. I even take notes on your writings and wrote out all the terms. Thank you for listening to my comments. A lot is pretty lame but I will get better with more studying and then I hopefully will speak on a level befitting men like you and Hurlyburly.
ANDREW: Wonderful to have you on board. Great comments and great questions. I am really looking forward to the comments and contributions that younger people like yourself have with regard to ITLAD and its implications. Indeed recently we have had a few comments form people in their early 20's ((This will upset Hurly Burly as he likes to be considered the baby of the group!!). Chris, for example.
I am really keen to involve guys like yourself with young, fresh ideas. Would you consider a "full Membership" so that you can place your own postings and start your own threads? I would be honoured if you considered this. If you do just drop me an email on cheattheferryman@aol.com and I will set it up.
Cheers
Tony
Mr. Peake,
I am amazed and honored by your offer and have emailed you. Thank you.
Andrew G. Kovalinsky
Andrew Giancarlo: ANDREW DEAR BOY!
WOW, thank you. I’m sure that your dear Mother will tell you that if you want any guidance or advice of what to read, where to look etc regarding Quantum Physics and Philosophy then I am only too happy to assist.
The ‘Sensation’ of Being Stared At post did become a mammoth read didn’t it, but I still enjoy reading through it as it’s a perfect example of what this blog can do when we pull together on an idea and work with each other.
Your comments are deeply humbling, especially as they come from you, at age 20, at the start of your glorious adulthood and from such esteemed lineage as your Mother, you dearly missed Father and your heritage.
I *bow respectfully* to you for taking the time to write this Andrew, and I am delighted beyond words that my simple ramblings have affected someone so young, so far away and so self-aware.
Thank You.
I have accepted your invitation, sir, with thanks. AGK
Andrew: Fabulous to have you onboard young man!
Karl: A question ... how does a rewrite of the Bohmian Imax "DVD" if you like, subdivide Space / Time, if it is simply a recording over top the old recording ?
Thx - Cam
Cam: I hope you now grasp the difference between Subjective Time and Objective Time / Eidolonic Time and Daemonic Time / Phaneronic Time and Observed Time following our FORUM discussion around this question and do not need me to repeat here.
Thank you for you kind comments regarding my post Cam, I'm glad you enjoyed it and that it helped your understanding of my CtCw theory of Consciousness.
Post a Comment