Posts tagged ‘a different view’

End of THE INTRO!!

The Final End to the Intro…]

The constant, inescapable and invisible editing of ‘experience’ leads to many things.  What is ‘truth’ in such a circumstance?  The more, incidentally, one becomes bombarded with even vaguely contradictory definitions and associated protocols, necessarily the more one is ‘confused’.  One either continually widens a definition if it is exclusive–an inclusive definition is based on patterns (it is in direct analogy to the storage of an object in a computer system as an object rather than defining it by its relative position in a file system) and is thus from the beginning set to ‘filter’ information while considering all of it relevant to some extent.  It is difficult to imagine a language using inclusive definitions that could be widely used.

The problem is discussed by Skinner in Walden II.  The ones who plan and run Walden can never be allowed in, just as the entire concept of communism is actually built on the idea of power withering away.  It can’t because that isn’t its logos.

Maybe the main pertinent result is that language in turn uses the edited consciousness (it does make for faster reactions) for construction and control of protocols.  This is also where consciousness definitely is modal, with a different set of protocols and generally a different group membership for each mode.  (“Job” and “home”.)  As media become more predominant, reality is increasingly in terms of them; before that if it couldn’t be said in the vernacular it wasn’t only false it was probably heresy or against the state.

This pretty well concludes the Introduction to A Different View (Of “Reality”).

February 9, 2017 at 3:37 pm Leave a comment

Intro To Diff View cont’d

Apparently I lost my attempted entry on LiveJournal, which is why I had abandoned it; that kind of thing.


Perception effectively takes place by means of the representative system employed.  Given that one uses language it will affect any other representative system used or replace it.  One’s identity is in terms of the value system employed implicitly within the language.  That means one’s value to their society—put bluntly , their right to live.  The aggressive nature of that first society would have started, most likely, with a conflict over resources (almost certainly involved with ‘territory’ or exclusive right to use a resource) which the aggressive society identifies as necessary.  A society over a certain and rather small size isn’t actually viable if geographically stable.  If it doesn’t move that almost inescapably means that it’s ‘progressing’ toward towns and cities.  The aggression would be amplified the first time that population overwhelmed resources, because lines would quickly be drawn as to who deserved to live—that’s the crucial aspect of the social value I mentioned.  A mobile society which isn’t technologically advanced is restricted as to size.  Along the way religion develops, it seems.


Note that the oldest religions we know of contain ways to survive.  Look at the Ten Commandments in light of survival.  Pork is extremely dangerous to consume, and was forbidden.  Strife within a group of people generally involves violence and if it goes on for a long time generally it manages to destroy that group.  At least most of the ancient religions that idolized violence have disappeared.  Few worship  Baal with their brass god and his belly hungry for intruders from what I hear.  No, our society simply and openly idolizes violence, and apocalyptic movies are wildly popular.  When a self-destructive modality develops it seems generally infective, and remarkably effective.  If consciousness is by means of language and that language’s value structure changes, there are unavoidable influences on perception.  I was never going to write that part, incidentally, but Trump’s wild and continuing popularity is basically rational only in that vein.  The world does end with a bang, because the first usage of nuclear weaponry will trigger nearly instantaneous response which probably can’t be controlled.  –At its best, language is a supreme method of social adaptation.


It allows for the storage and transmission of protocols.  For this purpose protocols may be defined as actions or more generally series of actions, impelled by: ‘perception’/definition/’value determination’/reference to library of actions.  Perception isn’t ‘pure’ or what actually comes from the senses without training for most people. We use words to ‘consciously’ think.  Generally the perception stems from learning, often copying.  The kids who copy in school (dressing like the most popular others, or their favorite actor, or) are still copying, that instinct with which we’re born.


The true consciousness  is necessarily wordless.  It would be difficult for it to be discrete.  Each body varies.  Let us note just here that the concept of “average” is quite simply fascinating.  It may mean three things; mean, median or mode. The mean is of course all of some numbers being added and then divided by the number of members in the given set, and its accuracy varies with the number of people well above or well below “the usual”, which means it’s an attempt to avoid the obvious lack of possible accuracy in that phrase, “the usual”.  The mode is the most common number.  If we’re talking about income, for instance, the mode is the (mathematically determined) income that most people get.  The median is the line between the most income and the least (0).  I am mentioning  this because the concept is entirely useful mathematically and the problem is establishing a firm connection between mathematical operations and what “actually” occurs.  This is where “modal” comes truly to the fore.   Modern consciousness necessarily consists of series of modes (with necessarily non-linear [complex] connections and generally more than one sort of mode is involved in any situation: protocols here have become similar to C++ in one respect; there are inescapable assumptions with any statement, and some of the assumptions  won’t be true—and because reasoning is done with language [necessary for “peer validation”, and from what I have said this is actually a complicated translation in and of itself; lingual concept to actual representational conceptualization, to ‘logical’ operations, translated back to lingual representation (with any statements that don’t conform to group-defined reality [a lingual reality, a reality defined by words which presume exclusivity of meaning {see your favorite dictionary}.


Now then.  This is a compression of (a small part of) about ten years of thought.


It does relate directly to the analogy of humans chained and staring at moving shadows on the cave wall, with the light presumably from an unseen fire.

February 5, 2017 at 5:16 pm Leave a comment