When we are infantile, we perceive the world in terms of transformations and continuity. When someone's head disappears behind the playpen wall, it no longer exists. And when someone's arms extend from behind a tree trunk, they are part of that tree trunk. And when that tree appears fairy-sized beside our hand, it is not because the tree is far away, but because you have discovered its untouchable miniature right in our presence. A thing happens to us between this time and adulthood that morphs that cononical perception into an interspersed mass of objects and interactions. Language.
Particularly Indo-European languages (English, French, German, etc.) are primarily based on nouns. We think, communicate and perceive based on what language has done to our interaction with the world. We fragment its natural cohesion just by the way we behold it.
Language was once verb-based... transformation-based. Native American languages, Bengali and other endangered linguistics. These were also peoples who interacted with reality as if it were all actualized in the same condition, and from the same piece of cloth and ultimately still cohesive.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
descartes. the man. cogito ergo sum, etc... the dualist.
the nature of matter, he thought, is to expand itself to occupy space and thus be susceptible to physical examination. the nature of the mind is to think. the defining characteristics of these actualities being so isolated, he surmised, they must function entirely individually. and hence consecrated was the mind-body problem.
and if matter and mind are monistic content of the larger whole?
if matter is infinite such that on many levels it is strongly influenced by consciousness, does it not follow that matter and mind may be more highly interactive than our intellectual paradigm allows?
alright. so i blogged eons ago about what it might mean if microtubules were the carriers of consciousness, and communicated by replicative and epigenetic phenomena with DNA. this remains a feasible possibility to me, but i no longer have reason to believe that microtubules and DNA would be the only instance of this mind-matter causality.
if we one day exhume that matter is inexhaustible, then it becomes plausible that mind intervenes its manifestation and directs it. which is not to say that a cup of jello might appear in the hand of a mind that desires it, or that any massive physicality would arise instantaneously. rather, i think it stands to reason that such a relationship would suggest dialectical movement's role in evolution. of everything.
of electromagnetic fields, of life, of geological shifts, of societal constructions and destructions.
societal thought invades a level of materialism that begets a communal EM field which allows the society to move harmoniously while maintaining the presence of its individuals. like plasma.
universal thought invades a level of materialism that commands a shift in organelle function in a species that causes its evolution and simultaneously the subtle evolution of everything with which it interacts.
humanity builds itself on the "shoulders of giants", or rather, their mistakes. have we not always done so at the command of collective consciousness? do inventors not materialize thoughts in response to communal misgivings? do physicists not seek to explain the existence of the world based on the way that our societies now function (or flounder, rather)? and the problems we seek to eliminate in finding the rational answer to the biggest question of them all? if we one day understand the rational of matter, will we not also comprehend our own existence and, in so doing, realize the key to our own harmonious existence?
here is my confound. i do not believe in god, and i do not believe that the universe exists at the will of humanity or its delusioned elitism. without human directive, what is universal thought explained by if not god? where does it come from? the collective minds of every eletron in existence? the Higgs boson?
the only way i can fix this dissonance is by imagining that mind and consciousness it itself something infinite that we as of yet have no means to address. and by that i am comforted enough to sleep at night. killer.
Posted by Ragamuffin, PhD at 7:56 PM
Friday, July 17, 2009
A cyclotron accelerator strips atoms of their outer electrons, leaving them with a positive charge. The resulting melange of free electrons and positively charges atoms is called plasma.
Plasma functions in a collective way, oscillating as a whole, yet its components move freely and individually. When two electrons are completely isolated, they maintain an interaction over a long distance. But in a plasma, this long-range interaction is shielded by the presence of an astronomical number of additional particles. Because this demands that all particle interactions become short range, electrons move freely within the collective, with individual movements.
The long-range interaction, however, has not completely vanished. Rather, its shadowed impetus is what allows the plasma to behave coherently.
If a society could behave like a plasma, an ideal balance between serving oneself and one's community would emerge. Capitalism brags that it achieves this balance of perfect individual freedom experienced while serving the common good. Pragmatically speaking, however, capitalism exists only in the hope that service to the common good might somehow be fomented from claustrophobic nests of self-committed individuals.
Posted by Ragamuffin, PhD at 12:07 PM