The distortion of reality by mass aspect ratios
Some times when you are looking at a suspended situation, that being one that you cannot change, you pray, you say things like, “this cannot be…”, “I will fall a sleep and when I wakeup everything will be just fine…”, it wont be the situation, the death of a loved one the breakup of a loving relationship, the suspension from your job, a cancer that has three months left to finish eating your body, the situation has collapsed into reality and now the only thing that you can do is maneuver through the consequences.
It is the factors of suspended situations that give people anxiety and fear, which is why there is an inherent fear to act and more of a stratified tendency towards conservatism. The only way to see beyond the muck created by suspended situations is to be a blind visionary, to leap against the probable.
There are any number of ways to view reality, a conservative and a liberal both view reality from apparently opposing angles. What is odd is that neither party realizes that any bicameral system is evidence of internal de-coherence and neither side can be right when acting truly against its presumed opposite. All successful systems suffer mostly from coherent-congruity, any type of conflict within a system is not a sign of its vivacity or openness but rather evidence of its doubts.
However regardless of their validity bicameral systems are suspended situations. You cannot deny their existence and even with their inherent de-coherence their self-destruct tendencies are overcomed by their advances and these advances distort the reality field to ward off other ideas and purposes and to merely further their own.
As any system of belief grow it will invariably grow at the cost of something else because there is only a base “p” quantity, that is a maximum plurality to any given aspect of reality, based on the mass aspect ratio of human energy. The mass aspect ratio of human energy is always reduced by the mass aspect action and mass aspect belief ratios.
It is therefore dangerous for systems to have internal dualities, however it is also very true that the least dualistic systems, that is the closest to wholeness are indeed bicameral. In the case of religion the only thing preventing its perfection is the evil side, but this is in part due to the inability of the good to accept evil and the inverse is equally true. This mutual aversion creates enough incongruence to limit the ability of religion to inject and spearhead itself to all aspects of life. The duality ends in being a benefit for the rest of us that might not have any interest in that particular field. If the left and right of politics and the evil and good of religion ever succeeded in consolidating it would be to the detriment of all ideas waiting to be born or currently in their infancy. Reality would be stormed by pure religion and monopolistic politics.
Actually in the current world order we are not very far from that, religion and politics dominate the mass mindset, people dedicate their energies to listening, acting upon or developing further the structures of political and religious institutions, hence the marketability of their suspended realities.
In a strong third place comes science, which has grown from being an insignificant wizardry 1500 years ago or so to a monster of considerable proportions hitherto. While the internal incongruence of religion and politics is a plenty obvious, the odd thing is that the incongruence within science is less so. You could not find a left or right or a good and evil obvious bias within the sciences. The lack of an internal bicameral strife in the scientific community can be ascribed to 3 factors, its youthfulness, its empirical and its innovative and brilliant externalization of internal bicameralism.
A substantive in all this is the human essence. Human essence is what all theoretical models depend upon, how much of that energy any theory gets demarks the “p” potential of its material success.
Now having considered the energy source, we can now consider the 3 factors. Youthfulness comes in handy because no one knows your strength nor your weaknesses much less what if anything you will become. A young child is as much a Philosopher or a Mafia Boss or an Architect. Any idea in its youth has the capacity to impress due to its massive energetic naiveté, it doesn’t know what it is internally and therefore it is not inherently divisive, before the big bang the universe suffered zero incongruence. Science in its early rise had no internal strife, in part and mostly because it didn’t even know what it was, the constructs of the empirical and the mathematical logic that would become the crux of the scientific were only recognized after they were well founded and widely practiced.
So it may well be in part to its youthfulness that science does not have an obvious bicameral nature, but it is even odder than that, some might think that there is a duality between quantum and relativity and that that is the good and bad of it. Nothing could be more wrong because science is not bent on destroying either theory, in fact scientists have moved forward to prove both theories and to create a grand unified theory of everything with those two tools included. Though the aim is doubtful, a masterly stroke it would be if they succeeded. But the point is that neither quantum nor relativity are partisan, in point of fact they have opted to clearly define the aspects of reality that belong to each and those apparently do not superimposed upon one another, quantum has free reign over the micro-cosmic and relativity is charged with explaining all of the macro-cosmic.
This hairline separation of responsibilities allow the apparent internal dualities to coexist within the context of the greater whole of science.
The development of the empirical can never be glorified or admired enough, it was simply brilliant because it codified a principle of objectivity into any and all scientific actions. God was bias, he wants everyone to love him first and foremost, even above love of the self; politicians have the agendas of lobbyists and their constituencies on their heads, and then there is party partisanship; the empirical killed all that bias in the framework of the scientific.
What empirical implies is firmly this: “See for yourself, you don’t need me to prove it to you, you can prove it to yourself, whatever I do you can do too, you just have to do as I do but any observer or practitioner from any angle can reach the same results as long as the conditions and parameters of the given experiment suffer same circumstances. That is simply brilliant, god could walk on water and turn water into wine but you cannot. You could be a politician but you would have to be able to expound any belief system against your own personal belief, few are so gifted; science simply said that the universe was not only observable but replicable by the hand of man!
Of course you had to use the empiricist bible, you had to believe that there was and is an objective world, a world without you in it; this made the new scientific dogma seem selfless, that is objective, so much so that if the dogmatics discovered any incongruencies that did not meet with the empirical objective, (theory has to be proven through replicable experimentation and it has to be mathematically observable,) they would have to discard such theoretical assumptions; for it must all add up and sum total. It is not always easy to do this and some times you have to round off and make certain assumptions but mostly its squares well.
As a substantive the empirical eliminates any internal inconsistencies and so the bicameralism of science is constantly being ironed out, the fundamental greatness of this approach is that it allows the scientific mindset to change under its own internal guidance without seeming hypocritical or deceitful. Contrast that with religion which has such absolutes truths that it cannot change or with politicians that change their truths as their interests change and you can glory in that brilliance.
But, there is that hidden bicameralism, ignorance! Science has to know, it wants to know, it seeks to eliminate your blind spot, it wants to expose everything under the microscope of knowledge, and thus science is constantly fighting the battle of the dark ages, the muck that it actually grew out of, and there is their core duality. Only that duality has been externalized so that it is inherently harmless within science, this is done by saying that ignorance is outside of science, whereas a republican and a democrat would not dare to say they are not a part of a political process; and good and evil could not credibly say that they are not contextually within religion; science can duly claim that ignorance is not a part of its core systemic, it can claim that “it will eventually know what it doesn’t know”, so that even ignorance is not safe from total annihilation by the scientific premise!
Of course some would say that there is another duality that I haven’t tackle here, evolution vs. creation. It is easy to put that off as a mere side show, no true scientist’s spends any time fighting against religion; when Galileo had to apologize to religion he did so, it cost him nothing to kneel before the grand inquisitor of his time, in fact it was a brilliant propaganda move for science; the church would have done better for itself if it had ignored Galileo, much to its detriment it propped him up and made him the Jesus Christ of science thus allowing to steal the fact that it was religion that jump started the principles of knowledge and was by far, at least in Galieo’s time, a great contributor.
In the end the beauty of science will become a burden as it ages and it becomes painfully obvious that not everything is knowable and that what is knowable might be counter to our humane interest. However an externalized duality is always, to the tenth power times harder to destroy than any giant size internal duality; hence the grandness of that distorted reality that we call science; once proven it cannot be wished away thus it must be cut.
ricardo (c)
It is the factors of suspended situations that give people anxiety and fear, which is why there is an inherent fear to act and more of a stratified tendency towards conservatism. The only way to see beyond the muck created by suspended situations is to be a blind visionary, to leap against the probable.
There are any number of ways to view reality, a conservative and a liberal both view reality from apparently opposing angles. What is odd is that neither party realizes that any bicameral system is evidence of internal de-coherence and neither side can be right when acting truly against its presumed opposite. All successful systems suffer mostly from coherent-congruity, any type of conflict within a system is not a sign of its vivacity or openness but rather evidence of its doubts.
However regardless of their validity bicameral systems are suspended situations. You cannot deny their existence and even with their inherent de-coherence their self-destruct tendencies are overcomed by their advances and these advances distort the reality field to ward off other ideas and purposes and to merely further their own.
As any system of belief grow it will invariably grow at the cost of something else because there is only a base “p” quantity, that is a maximum plurality to any given aspect of reality, based on the mass aspect ratio of human energy. The mass aspect ratio of human energy is always reduced by the mass aspect action and mass aspect belief ratios.
It is therefore dangerous for systems to have internal dualities, however it is also very true that the least dualistic systems, that is the closest to wholeness are indeed bicameral. In the case of religion the only thing preventing its perfection is the evil side, but this is in part due to the inability of the good to accept evil and the inverse is equally true. This mutual aversion creates enough incongruence to limit the ability of religion to inject and spearhead itself to all aspects of life. The duality ends in being a benefit for the rest of us that might not have any interest in that particular field. If the left and right of politics and the evil and good of religion ever succeeded in consolidating it would be to the detriment of all ideas waiting to be born or currently in their infancy. Reality would be stormed by pure religion and monopolistic politics.
Actually in the current world order we are not very far from that, religion and politics dominate the mass mindset, people dedicate their energies to listening, acting upon or developing further the structures of political and religious institutions, hence the marketability of their suspended realities.
In a strong third place comes science, which has grown from being an insignificant wizardry 1500 years ago or so to a monster of considerable proportions hitherto. While the internal incongruence of religion and politics is a plenty obvious, the odd thing is that the incongruence within science is less so. You could not find a left or right or a good and evil obvious bias within the sciences. The lack of an internal bicameral strife in the scientific community can be ascribed to 3 factors, its youthfulness, its empirical and its innovative and brilliant externalization of internal bicameralism.
A substantive in all this is the human essence. Human essence is what all theoretical models depend upon, how much of that energy any theory gets demarks the “p” potential of its material success.
Now having considered the energy source, we can now consider the 3 factors. Youthfulness comes in handy because no one knows your strength nor your weaknesses much less what if anything you will become. A young child is as much a Philosopher or a Mafia Boss or an Architect. Any idea in its youth has the capacity to impress due to its massive energetic naiveté, it doesn’t know what it is internally and therefore it is not inherently divisive, before the big bang the universe suffered zero incongruence. Science in its early rise had no internal strife, in part and mostly because it didn’t even know what it was, the constructs of the empirical and the mathematical logic that would become the crux of the scientific were only recognized after they were well founded and widely practiced.
So it may well be in part to its youthfulness that science does not have an obvious bicameral nature, but it is even odder than that, some might think that there is a duality between quantum and relativity and that that is the good and bad of it. Nothing could be more wrong because science is not bent on destroying either theory, in fact scientists have moved forward to prove both theories and to create a grand unified theory of everything with those two tools included. Though the aim is doubtful, a masterly stroke it would be if they succeeded. But the point is that neither quantum nor relativity are partisan, in point of fact they have opted to clearly define the aspects of reality that belong to each and those apparently do not superimposed upon one another, quantum has free reign over the micro-cosmic and relativity is charged with explaining all of the macro-cosmic.
This hairline separation of responsibilities allow the apparent internal dualities to coexist within the context of the greater whole of science.
The development of the empirical can never be glorified or admired enough, it was simply brilliant because it codified a principle of objectivity into any and all scientific actions. God was bias, he wants everyone to love him first and foremost, even above love of the self; politicians have the agendas of lobbyists and their constituencies on their heads, and then there is party partisanship; the empirical killed all that bias in the framework of the scientific.
What empirical implies is firmly this: “See for yourself, you don’t need me to prove it to you, you can prove it to yourself, whatever I do you can do too, you just have to do as I do but any observer or practitioner from any angle can reach the same results as long as the conditions and parameters of the given experiment suffer same circumstances. That is simply brilliant, god could walk on water and turn water into wine but you cannot. You could be a politician but you would have to be able to expound any belief system against your own personal belief, few are so gifted; science simply said that the universe was not only observable but replicable by the hand of man!
Of course you had to use the empiricist bible, you had to believe that there was and is an objective world, a world without you in it; this made the new scientific dogma seem selfless, that is objective, so much so that if the dogmatics discovered any incongruencies that did not meet with the empirical objective, (theory has to be proven through replicable experimentation and it has to be mathematically observable,) they would have to discard such theoretical assumptions; for it must all add up and sum total. It is not always easy to do this and some times you have to round off and make certain assumptions but mostly its squares well.
As a substantive the empirical eliminates any internal inconsistencies and so the bicameralism of science is constantly being ironed out, the fundamental greatness of this approach is that it allows the scientific mindset to change under its own internal guidance without seeming hypocritical or deceitful. Contrast that with religion which has such absolutes truths that it cannot change or with politicians that change their truths as their interests change and you can glory in that brilliance.
But, there is that hidden bicameralism, ignorance! Science has to know, it wants to know, it seeks to eliminate your blind spot, it wants to expose everything under the microscope of knowledge, and thus science is constantly fighting the battle of the dark ages, the muck that it actually grew out of, and there is their core duality. Only that duality has been externalized so that it is inherently harmless within science, this is done by saying that ignorance is outside of science, whereas a republican and a democrat would not dare to say they are not a part of a political process; and good and evil could not credibly say that they are not contextually within religion; science can duly claim that ignorance is not a part of its core systemic, it can claim that “it will eventually know what it doesn’t know”, so that even ignorance is not safe from total annihilation by the scientific premise!
Of course some would say that there is another duality that I haven’t tackle here, evolution vs. creation. It is easy to put that off as a mere side show, no true scientist’s spends any time fighting against religion; when Galileo had to apologize to religion he did so, it cost him nothing to kneel before the grand inquisitor of his time, in fact it was a brilliant propaganda move for science; the church would have done better for itself if it had ignored Galileo, much to its detriment it propped him up and made him the Jesus Christ of science thus allowing to steal the fact that it was religion that jump started the principles of knowledge and was by far, at least in Galieo’s time, a great contributor.
In the end the beauty of science will become a burden as it ages and it becomes painfully obvious that not everything is knowable and that what is knowable might be counter to our humane interest. However an externalized duality is always, to the tenth power times harder to destroy than any giant size internal duality; hence the grandness of that distorted reality that we call science; once proven it cannot be wished away thus it must be cut.
ricardo (c)
posted by Ricardo Correa at 12:55 PM
<< Home