Time 1 and Continuity…

and Connectedness and Divisibility

Here’s a lesson in arbitrariness and possibly survivorship bias: America, and therefore the world essentially even if not explicitly, still follows, religiously (re: submissively) an antiquated, anachronistic, archaic et al, division of this (misconceived) linear, causal, continuous(ly-forward-moving) model of the True God, Time, that our brain uses to process relationships (here used in the most general, abstract sense) between matter and energy (or things and other things, things including anything and everything) into discrete pieces and then those pieces into pieces into pieces and so on years months weeks days hours minutes seconds into pieces and all the pieces matter maybe or not or then we take the (many) pieces once we have experienced them (one-by-one, alllll the liiiiittle pieces, where dooo they all come from? All the little pieces, where do they all belong?) and we associate those pieces with the (emotional) context in which they come to pass: memory. We can control the representational structure/form of our long-term memory, but in our contempormodernity, we assume the structure that our history has used is the proper structure. Take a look at History and tell me with a straight face that we know what we are doing…Nature and evolution and the universe provide the answers to our questions on systems, structures, symbiotic behavior, so we either listen or lose everything.

-BB

Words 2 (or Colors 1)

Blue

Effect (cause) to You,

blue might mean
everything you ever Knew,
to be of that color.
But,
Like,
what do I know?
Tell me, world:
Is my blue your blue?
Then you do,
tell me, that is:
“My blue is my blue,
Your blue is your blue.
There is some overlap, and
Let’s leave loss of meaning out
And not make people bored with blue;
Bluebitty blue blue beautiful hue too”
“fuck you, world.
Retract.
I love you.”
The word is blue, the world is blue
But words and worlds are representations,
abstractions
 (Ordered permutations of letters with:
 a rule here,
 a rule there;
Arbitrarily assigned, defined
using other…Sounds…)
Blue is a word.
Blue is a world.
Here we might mention the association with mood and music:
I’m blue
Dabadeedabada…
Not that music.
I thought only cows mood.
Blue cows, mood bad;
There must not be enough…
Hey,
Anyway…
What is blue?
What is you?
“Arbitrary de(-scription,
-piction)”
Who are you? (Hoo, hoo…)
Who is blue?
“Bad answers come from(?):
bad questions.”
Why are you blue?
Why are you you?
“Now we are making progress,
It’s a process.”
Why are you?
Why is blue?
“Exactly.”
Evo-(b)lu(e)-tion, baby.
it’s intuitive to the human brain,
invoking the action of eyes ‘seeing’ as their sense
(Lens focuses light towards retina,
 where photoreceptors are so excited to find their photon friends in their correct color cones, and instantly send the sensational news through neural networks as an electrical signal for processing and imaging)
Light
(permutations of photon particles doing the wave, so-to-speak, and if blue then on the short end but visible, moving at the speed of, well, light, or we can say c)
“You like this word: permutations…”
Math is ART(hur Cayley):
Every group is isomorphic to a subgroup of its symmetric group.
Worlds and words and worlds of words.
Why do we see (c)?
“How much time do we have?”
What is time?
“Not again…”
Ah, why is time?
“Flow, change, progress…”
Oh, my.
 what might you c, optimistically?:
Looking up at the sky,
Why, it’s blue! Why is it blue?
(Why, always why with you…)
A scattering comes across the sky…
Note same scattering in a blue eye.
And if the sky is blue that day,
If pollution isn’t in the way,
There’s no blue like the ocean.
Blue on blue, blue in blue, blue of blue
Meeting at the horizon.
You’re makin’ my dreams come blue
Or if the day chooses to be gray,
Clouds,
not content with fractal boarders providing limfinite complexity,
overlap to darken the sky,
raining on our blue parade.
Bastards.
On those gray daze,
blue is a collar,
 fuck color:
blue is the name of the train line some sorry sucka takes to work every morning,
and, (worse?), the converse
(from work, to some sad apartment, nothing like a home…
Nothing like Home).
Or the color of the tie this guy he sees on a ley line down his boss’ beer belly.
Or girl.
The blues.
Same as it ever was.
At this not-home,
To partners in misery,
Or to misery’s offspring,
blue might be a bruise:
Alcohol’s common collateral damage.
At its worst, blue is the glint of cold steel flashed before entry into a belly:
hara-kiri.
 Or blue smoke from a barrel
Real and rising,
Up, up, into that bluest sky…
(Don’t look down:
there, in the outpouring blood:
a tinge of what?)
Cause (effect) to You
-BB

Balls 1

Ancient Human Thought

The profound sense of self-significance leading to the formulation of the universe as some abstract not-earth, but certainly something because in this space of habitually-blue-but-not-water-blue somethingness exist the two great balls, the one of fire who must be best friends with eyeballs, raised to an exalted position because despite eyeballs’s inability to provide reciprocate offerings (staring at the fireball all day is harmful (while inducing any major-general assumptions about something based solely on sensory perception generoftenally (moreoftenthannotuhlee) makes an ass out of umptions or sumpthins, enough anecdotal evidence exists to support the following conclusion: staring at the Great Ball of Fire assiduously ironally makes an ass out of one’s eye duo thusly we derive the proverbial epithet ‘butthead’ to those blindly worshipping that which cannot be known) the great fireball still shows up and gives to eyeballs everything it can. And even though it must abdicate for that introverted, oft-veiled (finger nailed?) ball of shadows, the two balls having some sort of agreement or compromise on the great question asking is one ball better than the other (I’m playing around here wondering what representations consciousness and memory could have possibly formed in early homo sapiens, but humanity’s common perception of our ‘outer space’ remained fairly static until relatively recently on our timeline); or, perhaps, equivaliantly to these icons of egotism, is one ball more deserving of attention than its dual.

This is probably how early human minds thought about these things right? No? We tend to imagine transitions like the one to full conscious thought and fuller sense of time and self and environment and others etc. as very sudden, or we don’t think about it at all. Biologically, we share certain invariants with all life, but consciousness split human evolution because a brain with some self-awareness, self-reflection, being-in-worldness with other beings and objects, and access to long-term memory representations and associated functions to compare and synthesize (thus self-generating new constructive representations leading to creativity and imagination and multi-tasking) and retain for most of a lifetime has profound implications for human life, for all life, and even for the universe. Instead of relying on successive generations for evolution to perform its future-blind, random ‘learning’ by natural selection on entire populations using DNA as the memory record-keeper (but one the individual member of the species cannot access for learning it’s merely to pass on to offspring), the human brain can create limitless closed representations to both map in reduced form onto DNA for later generations but, locally, to store in the infinitely complex (built on unity) fine structure underlying our hyperfunctioning deep memory. Over an entire (very short relative to biological evolutionary timescales even though we live long) lifetime, each individual human being experiences, learns, and synthesizes more knowledge than natural selection can do on its own over epochs.

The BIG QUESTION OF QUESTIONS at the beginning of the evolution of human beings is then, informally, the following: Why consciousness evolved at all? We shall see…though to answer this I will first write about evolution from a general, theoretical perspective (I know I’MSOEXCITED URGONNALUVIT!).

-BB

On Postermodernism (Or Chaos Part One)

It is a misconception to think of postmodernism as a cohesive movement or umbrella under which some arrayed vector field points generally towards a common direction, a vision or goal or set of principles: literary, moral, thematic or what-have-you like the many preceding literary movements that whether because of the separation of time and other movements in between seem to have definable, finite, focused convergence toward a common worldview amongst its artists (ie romanticism, Victorianism, modernism). Or perhaps it’s more like we take a common set of basis representative works for a particular era and assume this finite set spans the entire space of the movement such that the pertinent knowledge is effectively filtered into said major representative works. This is indeed how knowledge works sometimes.

Of course, it’s often reductive to apply broad labels spanning connected places and times simply because our brains are hard-wired for this kind of linear-temporal ordered narrative of history. In any case, as certain technologies advanced writing and as literacy spread over time and as different groups of people gained the freedom, through loosening oppression, to explore their history/culture and hone their voice and craft (that there are far fewer famous women novelists in literature is not in any way a function of a gap in ability, and is wholly due to the fact that women had no way of disseminating their viewpoints in their appointed role as housewives and mothers throughout much of history, a role forced upon them so that men could go off on power trips both constructing and destructing civilizations with equal fervor and aplomb because of superior physical strength lingering from biological evolution but rendered null with the awakening of the conscious being and consequent branching of the evolution of the mind that separates humankind from all predecessors), literature as a whole branched more and more to accommodate the vastly disparate perspectives that define humanity’s existence.

I cannot overstate the significance of this progression towards shared perspective and experience, of the spread of knowledge in all its infinite forms, where individual, independent views and stories exist as separate entities through which a discerning mind can begin to synthesize knowledge and find universal themes and meaning while remaining cognizant that every mind is unique.

This brings me (by commodius vicus of recirculation…) back to postmodernism. Postmodernism should first be taken literally: the era of literature beginning with the Cold War that immediately followed modernism. Easy enough, and relative closeness of time of publication is really the only true invariant trait of postmodernism. At first, it was a reactionary movement, but the nature of the reaction created divergence rather than convergence. Postmodernism is primarily a leap of faith into exploration and experimentation and idiosyncrasy that represented the broader shifts in thought brought upon humans with the exponential growth of technology, science, and society, but also of course by the infinite void of wars and world-destroying weapons.

Regarding literature, the events of the first half of the 20th century catalyzed a denouncement of more classic structure, form, and language, but what emerged is much more aligned with how the universe actually works: ordered chaos. I have a fairly specific meaning when I invoke chaos: in a broad sense the philosophical implications of the discovery (and subsequent ubiquitous supporting evidence) that, even if we ignore random processes which certainly exist, many deterministic systems actually functioning in reality, besides often being dependent on unaccountably innumerable variables (but at least we can model these and even probabilistically so), abide by chaotic dynamics. The bane of the weathervane is just this: even if we can take a slice of time and call it time zero and measure every significant variable affecting climate with an aim toward prediction, chaos by it’s very definition stops us dead in our tracks eclipsing any hope of predictive value beyond local time scales (days, sometimes hours). This is one of the beautiful and damning secrets of the universe, the ultimate pro/con: chaotic systems are deterministic such that we can uncover their underlying structure and properties globally and even assign values to variables at time zero, but to attain the complexity necessary for a universe to evolve, these systems have to be otherwise unconstrained and specifically, among other things, they have the property that arbitrarily small perturbations (limit at infinity nonzero) in the initial values of aforementioned variables change the evolution of the system unpredictably and over the long run this often means vastly diverging results.

In other words, nature can define a system that will dynamically evolve over time, and it can set the initial values itself, but it won’t necessarily know the results with these values, hence the whole idea of experimentation. For us, because of inherent measurement error, even when minimized to seemingly negligible scales (but never zero), every single initial value will be off by some non-zero factor and any single error in a single variable renders prediction futile. We want to know properties that are invariant over all possible results. We will continue to explore self-similarity/scale invariance as core concepts leading to a comprehensive universal worldview throughout this blog. Human beings matter, each one no more or less than any others. Life matters. Everything matters.

-BB