TRANCHE 13

Silvio Gesell's notions of “free money” and “free land” have been drawn to my attention, which I deeply appreciate, as studying into his work has helped clarify certain issues. It is true that I had not earlier heard of Silvio Gesell, by name, or had not remembered the name (getting old, fortunately, given future of this planet), but I had had described to me about ten years ago by a Swiss economist working in Bangkok various currency schemes briefly experimented with on the local level in Germany and Austria during the period of the Weimar Republic, one of them being that of “free money”. A scheme similar was also attempted in Western Canada during the Great Depression era. Presently, reading into the literature on Gesell's idea, I find myself unable to regard the term “free money” as an accurate descriptor. “Free land” also, to me, is not an accurate descriptor. This judgment is not that of a mere intellectual. On my mother's side, Baumgardner is the name: tree gardener. More complicated German-Dutch history, more evangelical background, on the father's side. Though I come of yeoman stock in Mennonite-Amish country, and made my living, such as it was, for the bulk of my adult life with a pick and a shovel, digging trees, periodically as piece work ten hours a day, six, often seven, days a week, my paternal grandparents were not freehold farmers; their tenancy on the land of Franklin County, Pennsylvania was lost to the Great Depression. The free-soil ideal and fee-simple land ownership were certainly big parts of the cult of the yeoman my immigrant ancestors bought into from the mid-18th century, settling as they did near a town called Greencastle, becoming, surely, at least tacitly, Jeffersonian Physiocrats, but along the way, by the time of my paternal grandparents, freehold status was lost and my father was raised of tenant farmers, the tenancy being taken away before he, the youngest of thirteen children, could graduate from high school. These days, the farm is Amish freehold and nuclear-family worked. The piles of stone my uncles liberated from the horse-plowed fields stand still, sentinels speaking mute of the lost world of Thomas Jefferson, of former times, times when, for instance, the artesian well beneath the giant willow holding the metal milk cans was regarded sacred center of the family's extended life. Yes, animism, even in evangelical Christian south-central Pennsylvania.

The scale level of the watershed was important to my childhood in other climes and other times, as my father, become a military man -- the yeoman, throughout early American history, being regarded most reliable patriot and surest fighter -- carried my life into realms not known to our ancestors: 1953-56 Midori Gaoka, verdant hills, green castles, in wet-rice cultivating rural Kyushu, Japan. There, I learned of a different sort of yeoman, a yeoman, I later came to understand, possessing, and possessed by, a sense of impersonal not-so-self identity incorporating the physical surround. A yeoman without an Umwelt, without an own-world, because the natural object -- and the object of craft; the ritual object; the “other” as aesthetic object; the social relation as objectified ritual; great Nature as the sublime-transformed inner object, collectively incorporated by stylized placement in sacred space, visual and auditory -- was so profoundly introjected, and, in times past, processed by trance-state communication with spirits of the land and ancestors indistinguishable from a land spirit-inhabited, that identity was holographically part-whole transparent, not merely translucent. This, I later directly discovered, was still similarly the case a decade hence in the Mekong Delta of Viet Nam -- even in the midst of yet one more war: not-so-self identity, an eddy on the rhythms of a great river. In such societies, exchange was no mere transfer of goods, nay, not merely even a conveyance of economic value; it also was to keep circulating what the Japanese call shinki, the god-spirit of the possession cult, signifier of identity-transparency, which translators have mistakenly mixed up with the modern notion “energy”. More generally, throughout Asia -- which must be considered in any proposed global application of a “free money” -- ritual gift exchange, as adapted from prior conventions of “Stone Age economics”, was not an exchange of objects, but an exchange of subjects signified by objects (what Marcel Mauss' Trobriand Islanders -- the Mauri -- called “hau”): not-so-personal identity gift-exchanged in lieu of war, exchange of spirits introjected in lieu of the objects of the physical surround incorporated into corporate identity of the population corpus fused with the natural surround, an introjection needing constant servicing if spontaneous social order was to be sustained. The social order, rooted in not-so-personal identity-transparency, was not a person-to-person affair; just as the ancestor was this rock, was this tree, this soil, this totem animal, so the population corpus was the land, was the moon, the sun, the stars, and the immanence of their patterns of movement, ritualistically viewed, heard, felt. The sacred object of ritual gift exchange, need not actually be exchanged, and frequently wasn't in ritual gifting, as it was mere signifier imbued with presence of the god-spirit connoting attributes of collective identity-transparency serviced by propitiation -- patterns of propitiation incorporating immanence of movement in the natural surround. By this means was the social order and its economies made in heaven, mandated by heaven, fashioned in the forms of the god-spirits, the form and forms of a Nature introjected. The medium of exchange was not for facilitating exchange; it simply signified something that was always already there -- and in so doing insured spontaneous order under the Mandate of (Nature's) Heaven.

Silvio Gesell's notions of “free money” and “free land” were embraced by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, given that Gesell was made Finance Minister of their Bavarian Soviet Republic. Karl and Rosa were killed in 1919 when the secessionist Marxist republic was crushed; while Silvio survived his imprisonment and was acquitted of treason at trial. Formation and eradication of the Bavarian Soviet Republic was, by intense back-reaction, part of the run up to Nazification, the process which destroyed the Weimar Republic and led to larger tragedies. This is no exaggeration; loathing of communism was one great motivator of Nazification. And it is not surprising that Karl and Rosa endorsed Gesell's ideas for “free money” and “free land”, as the descriptors are misnomers, Orwellian black propaganda terms. Not only usury, not only low interest, not only all interest is to be outlawed by legislation, but an invariant small negative interest rate is to be universally imposed on all money held. Not a transaction rent, no user's fee: accumulation escrow (held in trust for redistribution). The “free money” has attached to it a negative interest rate: the holder of this money must pay a small holding fee; the longer the money is kept, the more holding fees paid (even if you keep it stuffed in your mattress). And, of course, the more money accumulated, the greater the fees due. This, of course, will be the biggest boon to hoarding gold since free silver -- unless gold too must be stamped. And then a boon to… The purpose of the negative interest rate is to make money move, increase its velocity -- and to make accumulation too costly to contemplate. Accumulation being a source of inequities of benefit and of the nature rape entropy generation entails. Buy now, don't save later or now, as an approach to postponing extractive consequences of the second law of thermodynamics. The money is not “free” to you; you must pay to hold it. The money itself is “free” to move. This is the actual meaning of the word “free” as used by Gesell. And who receives the negative interest charged as a holding fee? The government issuing the money, of course, takes the fees into escrow. The money holder must buy a stamp from the government at regular intervals and affix it to the specie so long as it is held. Were this scheme to be adopted today, RFID tags would probably be involved. This fee, this negative interest on money held, is actually a tax not called a tax, a progressive tax called “free”. This tax not called a tax is a redistribution scheme requiring government intervention and government execution. A double-speaking Commissariat of Free Money will have to be created, and its bureaucracy will surely grow and grow, because it will have to, not only collect and redistribute the holding fees, but it will also have to determine actual productive output of the economy and modulate issuance of money accordingly (algorithm of issuance being rate-governing, like speed limits: matter of velocity, with acceleration and time rate of change of acceleration generally being economically neglected). We are told that, if the currency is a commodity-basket currency, modulation of issuance will take care of itself. It is hard to imagine quite how that would be the case, however, as a commodity futures market is precluded by the very nature of “free” money. Where is the incentive to participate in a futures market? Absent a futures market on commodities in the basket, the government will have to set prices of the commodities involved in the currency basket, for, so long as there is more then one such currency, there will be complexities of articulating currencies which will require government oversight and management, irreconcilable conflicts of vested interest (the other kind of interest) being involved. And since Gisell's idea is not only for “free” money but for free trade and for free movement of labor, one must expect, given that increased velocity of money movement is a major objective of this scheme, there eventually will be only one we-are-the-world currency (coercive “we”), as currency exchange, and associated fees, will be an unwelcome constraint on the movement of money. Global implementation of “free” money will necessarily involve creation of a world government with a Global Commissariat of Free Money determining actual productive output of the global economy and issuing money proportionately (or price management of the commodity basket currency referent) -- not to mention collecting and redistributing the holding fees. Everybody will be trying to get rid of money so fast, the bureaucracy will have to have less and less computers to keep track of the holder's fees it will be getting less and less of. Maybe “fee-simple” eventually will have the same meaning in this context, as it once had in early America relative to land ownership. But don't be too sure! No mere blatherskiting Americanism, I could not have lived for six years in a gingerbread cottage tucked into woods of Virginia's Wedderburn Station, an abode dating to prewar years as a liaison stop on the underground railway, without being a free-soiler. Nonetheless -- and realizing how closely associated were free-soil, geographical determination, natural right and growth, manifest destiny, the Star of Empire… hmmmm. Gisell's “free land” -- necessary for the global free movement of labor implicit in “free” money that cannot be accumulated -- also is not free to you; you will not own it; you will rent it. And guess who your landlord will be. The same landlord as my landlord: the government, of course. The government will pay fair market value to all current landowners, then redistribute the land thus nationalized on an equitable basis, charging rent to the new tenant. In this case, one is uncertain as to the actual meaning of the word “free” in “free land”, as clearly the land will not be free to you and it likely, unlike “free” money, will not itself be free to move, at whatever velocity.

High velocity money these days is called “hot money”. Hot money makes positive interest; therefore, cannot be “free” money. Interest is a kind of viscosity; it slows money down, parks it for shorter or longer periods. If you don't “place” your money somewhere, no one will pay you for its use. Even though I have frequently been an over-saver, in order to have periods free of labor and full of study, I know this mostly through speculation and hearsay, as the interest I have accrued in my lifetime with my chosen “placements” has been unmentionably small change (inflation considered, often a negative interest rate, like “free” money). And if you want to use someone else's money, you have to pay them positive interest for the privilege. Hot money is magical; it often receives over-market interest rates, and yet is relatively free of the viscosity that usually goes along with the presence of interest. The magic without magic associated with hot money is due to systemic partitioning, to boundaries that long ago established differential “initial” conditions which have historically summed to the present array of superposed internalities and externalities (characterized with econometric difference equations). Hot money moves between systemic partitions seeking to better itself through playing across the fault lines the partitions delineate. The “play” is a very interest-filled movement toward and away from perceived risk and expected gain. The velocity of hot-money-condemned is that on a unidirectional vector: movement away, not toward. No one condemns hot money when it arrives -- at whatever velocity. One of Gisell's intents in creating the notion of “free” money is to slay the dragon of unending growth. This, he felt, could be accomplished by creating circumstances whereby money would increase in velocity bidirectionally: both toward and away. The faster money moves bidirectionally, the less viscosity, the less accumulation, and the less unending growth. Indeed, no growth; likely negative growth, with its attendant problems.

Economic issues of unidirectionality versus bidirectionality have a natural correlate in the “partition law” of cellular physiology. Speaking here of the living cell of biological science, that is (a rather arrogative way to put it, the reader must countenance). It could validly be said that one of the objectives Gesell hoped to achieve with “free” money was establishment of an equilibrium distribution of economic value. We'll get back to value in a moment. “Free” money, by making accumulation of money (not necessarily goods, gold, gems, illicit drugs, black market interest) impossible (thereby necessitating government maintenance of a very broad blue line, as history of “prohibition” informs us), will assuredly redistribute money (maybe even value under some definitions) until some equilibrium distribution is achieved. Inside the living cell the concentration (accumulation) of some solutes is higher than the surrounding medium; for other solutes, the concentration (accumulation) is lower than the surrounding medium: these differentials being largely responsible for the potential difference, the voltage, associated with cellular life, absence of which is associated with cellular death. Capital accumulation in economics -- capital treated as a bulk phase -- is sort of like edema in cell physiology: both involve unidirectional adsorption, a viscosity in movement away. The cell pays over-market interest (through the good offices of ATP). Concentration lower than the surrounding medium, biologically, involves partial exclusion (which the “partition law” describes), viscosity in movement toward. The cell pays lower (sub-market) interest. The Troshin equation describes both of these directionalities in a single statement. “Free” money, in paying negative interest, would altogether remove both forms of viscosity, thus increasing velocity of monetary motion toward and away, while orchestrating an equilibrium distribution -- at the expense of depleting potential difference, the voltage of economic life. The act of removing all viscosities would be tantamount to using a sledgehammer on processes of spontaneous order operative in the very nature of exchange processes.

What, by contrast, is socio-economically optimizing (though certainly not utopian) is development of the capacity for self-organization of the modulation of various classes of viscosities according to well-tempered macro-goals that delicately adjust the micro-goals of market actors. Gisell is correct in imagining that velocity of money in movement presents an “instrumental inference” (to borrow a term coined by economist Adolph Lowe) in regards to modulation of viscosities. He was also prescient in dwelling upon the nature of economic value and pointing out that absence of insight into the properties of such value signifies a fundamental failure of economic thought. Well-temperament in macro-goals (such goals being altogether disallowed, scoffed at, even, by contemporary “free” marketeers -- this “free” also being a black propaganda term) surely must have some important connection with economic value (a notion also disallowed by “free” marketeers), that value which self-organized modulation of viscosities would constantly be redistributing into one or another non-equilibrium phase such that the alternating current of economic cycles is optimally smoothed. This current would be a 3-phase AC current, as the modulation operators would involve effects on, not only velocity of money in movement, but also acceleration and time rate of change of acceleration of money in movement (rates, rates of rates, and rates of rates of rates being the time-ordered information quanta of what I call an “autopoionomy”: quantum mechanics, according to David Bohm, being a theory of “clocks within clocks within clocks”, clocks treated as waves, waves treated as clocks: in economics, cycles). Velocities map intrasystemic flows, providing instrumental inference primarily concerning carrier functions. Accelerations map intersystemic flows (having much to do with externalities and origin of business cycles), while time rates of change of acceleration map self-referential non-orientabilities (what George Soros has employed the term “reflexivities” to designate, and which involve expectations and their Heisenberg-like subversion of linear-time reference by virtue of the m-logically-valued properties of the involved self-referential propositions). Successful such modulation (particularly in regards to accelerations) would have profound effects relative to preventing extreme disparities of benefit without imposing thermodynamic equilibrium, which is the very definition of death. Successful such modulation (particularly in regards to time rates of change of acceleration) would have profound effects relative to the issue of unending growth, a growth which presumes a linear-time reference that is non-subvertible. This rate-of-the-rate-of-the-rate order of modulation would decisively engage what economist von Hayek called the “time-shapes” of total capital stock, a particular reading of which sets the “initial” conditions of economic partitions historically imposed (anthropic principle). For a fuller account of the universalistic roles played by these three dynamic variables see our paper entitled “Toward a General Theory of Process”.

Let's hear from our novel The Moon of Hoa Binh concerning the properties of economic value. Excerpted from pages 541-43, Vol. 2, wherein a discussion in Kyoto is recounted:

“Quantum economics!” Yoshio blurted out enthusiastically.

“Autopoionomy,” Derek suggested. “Newtonian perspectives begin on the left with anarcho-syndicalism and span to the right terminus at anarcho-capitalism; stepping off this narrow Newtonian wafer into the vast deep of the quantum sea, one discovers autopoionomy.”

“Hmmmm.” An atmosphere filled with musings.

“And,” continued Derek, “the central hypothesis is an allelotropic theory of value: rooted in relative-state, superintegration, overdetermination.”

More hmmmms…

“Allelotropic?” asked Ilse, harping back.

“Yes,” Derek affirmed. “Allelon: of each other. Trope: a turning. Value is a measure of the three factors I mentioned: relative-state, superintegration, overdetermination. It's the quantum potential in an autopoionomy: an economic process self-organizing on the basis of quantum principles. Value is a measure of the capacity to integrate the subsystem-system-supersystem composite. A wave function would be required to represent it. Value is the index of a turning to each other; it is a metaphorical embodiment -- an allegorization -- of the 'other-awareness', as I like to say… economic value being only a special case of the general principle having applications in physics, sociology, sexology, ethics, metapsychology, and so on. Behaviors that exhibit value are allegiant: loyal.”

“But how would it work?” asked Ilse.

“Movement of money through the system composite is information pulling activity after itself,” said Tadao. “The flow of capital in pursuit of gains draws resources in its wake. It is the movement of exchange that is the information about the total structure of the autopoionomy, not the unit price itself. Capital movement creates a field of activity: resource allocation. Using the electron analogy, movement of charge creates a magnetic field which is a system of event gradients. If money stands still there is no field of activity; if an electron stands still there is no field generated. Each electron carries multivalued information characterizing the total state of the system of which it is a part; that is, the integration of the system's component processes. Self-organization results from the quantum properties of electrons, which require a wave-function to describe.”

“The single-value attached to metal and currency,” said Derek, “would continue to be a supply and demand determined price relation of commodities, including labor. But the weight-system for the allelotropic computerized multiple values of the exchange unit would be self-regulated on the basis of preference functions and optimization criteria. Planometrics would be tied to econometrics in establishing modal micro-goals and sanctions in the market as an expression of non-equilibrium transitions in autopoionomies.”

And excerpted from pages 622-24, Vol. 1, wherein an interrogation of a captured Vietcong cadre is recounted:

“For instance, Phat Thu believed that the orthodox idea about class leads to a misunderstanding of the chu nghia cheyen chinh vo san--”

The translator stumbled again. “Ummmm.” He shook his head. “Oh, I've got it: the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

“How is that?” asked Derek.

“It's an idea that has been discussed quite a bit recently,” said the Major, “in view of what's going on in China: the Cultural Revolution.”

“I'm not sure I understand what you mean,” said Derek.

“Well, if you base the idea of class only on the property owned and don't take account of political authority as a basis of oppression, then, some people feel, the class analysis is faulty and a situation could arise like that which has developed in China. These people say that the Cultural Revolution is just a continuation of the class struggle -- even though there is no longer any private property. The dictatorship of the proletariat can become a dense fog hiding class relations which were not removed by the socialization of the means of production. These people do not want that to happen here in Viet Nam after the revolution. They feel that the Lao Dong Party's class analysis is underdeveloped (they say that what has happened in the North since '54 proves it) and that this will lead to insufferable problems after the liberation war is complete. They say that policies will be initiated on the basis of certain expectations derived from class analysis, but that the expectations will not be met because the class concept is too limited to capture the realities of the situation.”

“Phat Thu was writing this kind of stuff in the 30s?” asked Derek.

“Well, no,” said Le Ba An, thoughtfully. “Actually, what Phat Thu said was much more complex. But people today still mention his ideas with respect when the implications of the Cultural Revolution are frankly discussed -- in certain circles, that is.”

“Can you tell me something of what Phat Thu actually believed?”

“I can give my rather superficial interpretation. I am by no means a real theoretician.”

“Please go ahead.”

“Class has to do with the idea of value.”

“Value?”

“Yes. Ah, you know. The labor theory of value.”

“Oh, you mean surplus labor. Who gets the benefit of the surplus labor. The classes are determined by this?”

“That's right. But he said that there was more to it than that.”

“More to what?”

“To value.”

“Hmmmm.” This is very surprising.

“That classes don't dissolve because there is more to value than just labor.”

“You mean they don't dissolve under socialism the way they should?”

“That's right.”

“Jesus!” said Derek. “That is an unusual idea… Let me see if I've got this straight and can fill in the blanks.” He sat there for awhile thinking.

“Okay, let me see… He believed that if class analytics is to be a useful dialectical tool, it has to derive from core Marxist concepts. Class, properly understood, he maintained, is an expression of value, not only of property and not only, like in feudal times, of authority. In the final analysis, the law of value is the law of motion in a capitalist society. This law dissolves under socialism and is replaced by the law of plan-conformity. As the law of value dissolves, so does the reality of classes. But he disputed the labor theory of value as being the final word, and maintained that the reason class relations still exist in socialist societies is because the labor theory of value overlooks something. The law of value has not, in fact, completely dissolved in the transition to socialism because more is involved than simply getting rid of the appropriation of surplus value.”

The Major gawked at Derek with a strange, wide-eyed expression on his face.

“Does that sound right?” asked Derek, following the translator's rendition.

“Uh… I believe so… You seem to know a lot about these matters… What you say sounds correct, except that Phat Thu had things to say about a new theory of value which he felt was more complete.”

“Use-value? Price-theory? Marginal utility?”

“You're giving me fits,” said the translator.

“No, no. Nothing like that,” stated the Major, after the translator finished. “Value is a bridge between those aspects of society having to do with class and those not having to do with class. Everything is connected with everything else and value somehow tells us about those connections… I actually couldn't understand a lot of what the man referred to in his writings.”

Goddamn, thought Derek. Value as a measure of the connectedness of things. Marx says that the exchange-value of a commodity is the expression of some fundamental stuff. This is an objective theory of value, not a use-value theory. What is this thing common to all commodities? Marx says it is a social substance: labor. The necessary labor required to produce the commodity. Capitalists tend to discount this idea as ridiculous. For them value is subjective and inextricably wrapped up with the market mechanism: it is all a matter of supply and demand and non-economic behaviors like conspicuous consumption and has nothing to do with anything intrinsic to the commodity. Derek felt that this was one reason why capitalism is so ecologically disastrous (not to say that “national communism”, like in the Soviet Union, isn't also ecologically disoriented). The value of anything whatsoever is absolutely arbitrary and exists only in relation to its capital utility. Nothing at all has any intrinsic value, in and of itself. Marx, beyond all doubt, was right in maintaining that this concept of value is the root of anomie in the modern world. It's a dark cavern of emptiness and devaluation of value at the very heart of all work and all consumption. It tears away subliminally at everybody, insidiously undermining all attempts to sustain a sense of quality -- and bleeds into every aspect of life. Not even the survival of the biosphere has intrinsic value; it is valued only insofar as that survival has capital utility. Dear Rachel, nobody is listening to you. But that survival is definitely a utility of marginal value (all we have to do is look at what is being done to the natural environment around us to get confirmation of that) until some critical state is reached (we hope -- and hope again that it's not too late when, and if, it comes). Hmmmm. But here we have another idea altogether, another objective theory of value. Can it be that every commodity somehow carries a statement about the condition of connectivity of an economy? How could that be? What would it mean? Is there something like superintegration in an economic process? Or overdetermination, to use the Freudian term? Uberdeterminierung, he had read in some treatise on the “structural theory”. Or relative-state, to use the term from quantum physics? Goddamn, what a fascinating idea. Can the intrinsic commodity-value somehow bridge the gap between goods production in the private and public sectors? Or between the economy and the other aspects of a culture? Can it mediate superintegration, overdetermination, and relative-stateness? SHE-it! This is exciting.

“And they still talk about Phat Thu all these years since?” asked Derek.

“That's right,” agreed the Major.

“But nobody has ever met the man?”

“No one I've known.”

Where had he heard that name? He had most definitely heard that name, thought Derek.

A theory of value, altogether transcending Marxism, issuing out of the participation mystique, the identity-transparency, characteristic of animistic peasant and tribal societies.

Intrinsic commodity-value can represent and modulate connectivity of an economy only if monetary units, like electrons, like anions, like cations, take on m-logically-valued properties. These properties relate to the superposed time-shapes of total capital stock: m-logical values tagged to time-shapes and stacked on the currency base as manner of internalizing externalities. Time-shape is a quantum-relativistic topological property not accounted for in the defining characteristics of entropy, not accounted for under the second law of thermodynamics, a law intimately involved in the issues of equilibrium distributions and unending growth, as well as questions of environmental degradation. Questions of depletion of resources cannot be adequately assessed independent of consideration of the time-shapes of total capital stock. Slaying the dragon of unending growth involves recognition of the presence of nonlinear orders of temporal ordering in natural processes, and associated classes of temporal operators. The discussion here would move into realms of operator-time, temporal curl, and so on. Again, the “Toward a General Theory of Process” paper is recommended.

Consider the Jungian archetypes-in-themselves to be Whiteheadian mathematical relation-structures to which the archetypal myth refers. The “complex” would be a Boscovitch-Whyte point-center-of-(quantum)action in the nexus of the archetypal relation-structure; Jung attempted to “locate” the complex with his association experiments (Lancelot Law Whyte's book The Unconscious Before Freud is very interesting in regards to such notions). The point-centers-of-action complexes would be like mass centers that curve spacetime, thus setting up event gradients the archetypal myth in part describes. But archetypes exist as relation-structures within a nested framework logically and ontologically spanning the “distance” between no-time and time, this framework being designated by the term “collective unconscious”. Linear-time is decomposed out of non-linear no-time by the logical operations performed on the nested archetype-framework by 3-fold operator-time (the decomposition being a form of forgetting, Platonic amnesis: we are forgotten into Becoming from Being-in-itself). Prime numbers, Gödel numbers, complex and hypercomplex m-valued functions, m-valued logics would be involved in description of the nested archetype-framework. Logical lattices between prime, hyperprime, and counterhyperprime numbers would constitute the relation-structures which the archetypes-in-themselves are. Riemann's band is merely one p-brane, for beyond the beginning out-there is in-here.

Yeah, I know. Quantum this, quantum that. So much fringy cognitive cotton candy! Done heard dat so much and so many. BUT YOU'D BETTER GET USED TO IT. Because there ain't no “classical limit”. Quantum physics itself is everywhere everytime: temporally and spatially nonlocal. Your you is so much unfringy cognitive cotton candy. I know you can't live with that. Indeed! Very likely it won't be too long before very many people quite literally won't live with it.

Speaking of “taking the derivative”, anthropologist Roy Wagner, in An Anthropology of the Subject: Holographic Worldview in New Guinea and its Meaning and Significance for the World of Anthropology (UC Press, 2001), says (p. 159) that “The calculus succeeds, whatever the imageries used to make sense of this, by reducing knowable variables to a point-event and making continuities responsible to it.” Is this right? On the next page he says that “…a work of music is no less than the germ or essence of holography, the capability of integrating any [Wagner's emphasis] task or understanding into a single and utterly simple totality.” Is this right? I answer no in both cases. A more correct statement about “taking the derivative” in calculus would be: The calculus succeeds, whatever the imageries used to make sense of this, by reducing [un]knowable variables to a point-event [the limit] and making continuities [expressions of an order of the transfinite sets unknowable to a binary mind] responsible to it [by treating infinite sets as if they were limitable sequences]. There would be no need for calculus if the variables were knowable to a binary mind. I am not missing Wagner's point about the “mechanism of meaning”. Is the essence of holography integration (as in calculus) to a single, simple totality? Of course not. This is an etymologist's notion of holography, not that of a physicist. From the Greek “holos”, meaning whole, complete, total. A normal photographic negative contains the whole image. What is "strange", but not unique, about a holographic plate is that, when broken, the smallest piece contains the whole image. No piece of a normal photographic negative, however large, contains the whole image. The definition of a denumerable transfinite set is any set with the same cardinality as one of its proper subsets: the part contains all the information of the whole. The holographic “germ or essence” of the transfinite set is removed when the calculus treats it as a limitable sequence. It is true that the whole image projected from the broken piece of a holographic plate is fuzzy, but this is because a binary mind is trying to resolve it. Were this image regarded by The Unconscious as Infinite Sets (Ignacio Matte Blanco, Duckworth, 1975), there would be no fuzziness. One could also learn much about this by reading J. A. Faris' Plato's Theory of Forms and Cantor's Theory of Sets. It is significant that these mis-statements are provided by Wagner in a chapter devoted to the music of Johann Christian Bach, summarized with the following statement (p. xiv):

Imitating our emotions better than we can, and better than its “romantic” surrogates, eighteenth-century classical music does not merely “represent” the potential of a true holography; it experiences [Wagner's emphasis] its resolution.

The aural equivalent to the binary mind's attempt to resolve the fuzzy visual image. Why would an anthropological treatise on worldview in New Guinea contain an essay on Johann Christian Bach, especially when only two paragraphs of the involved chapter are devoted to New Guinea? My answer is that the word “holography” is used by Wagner as what might be called a “hyponym” for violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction: the wholeness, the completion, the totality etymologically signified for Wagner by “holography” stands under (etymological origins of “hypo”) this violation of the rules of binary logic.

Wagner begins his book with an “Abstract of the Argument”. This is the closest I have seen a postmodernist anthropologist come to analysis of the logic he employs. The central message of the book (and, perhaps, of postmodernist thought) comes with the question (p. xiii) “Where is the Meaning in a Trope?” and its answer (p. xiii): “It [the meaning in metaphor] is language's way of determining what we mean by it.” Similar, if subsidiary, messages are (p. xiv): “The picture of the earth is the earth of the picture; artificial reality is nearer to life than life itself…” and “…the species that invented species from its own understanding. It [understanding] is a humor [Wagner's emphasis] of the species; how the human hologram undermines what we mean by ourselves.” What is the logic of such statements? Postmodernist thought is at pains to demonstrate the limitations to, indeed, dysfunctionality of, even the pathology in conceptualizing experience (my emphasis) by subjecting it to a “mechanism of meaning” (to use the term employed by anti-conceptual conceptual artist Arakawa and his poetess wife Madeline Ginns) whereby subject is distinguished from object and object distinguished from subject. This demonstration takes the form of a relentless attack on employment of binary logic. Polar logic, the logic of patriarchy where every proposition involves the “laterality” of gendered values: he, as opposed to she. One of the rules of this binary logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction: “no A is not-A”. No he is she. Wagner's messages systematically conflate A and not-A; they violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. Meaning (A) cannot be absolutely distinguished from language (not-A) because “it [meaning] is language's way of determining what we mean by it”. The same for “earth” and “picture”, “artificial reality” and “life itself”, “understanding” and “meaning”. But postmodernism not only attacks the ontological and epistemological utility of the logical Law of Non-Contradiction; it maintains that the process of abstracting experience “rotates” the laterality of binary-logic valuation into the verticality of social, political, and economic dominance: not merely “he and she”, not just “no he is she”, but “he over she”. Where does this notion of logical rotation come from? In order to discover this, we must look into the prehistory of postmodernism.

Most people would give a historical rendition something like the following: deconstructionist postmodernism emerged out of the post-structuralism of French semiologie, which had its origins in the Prague School of Linguistics, which came to Prague via the Russian Formalists from the USSR, which was rooted in Marxism, which grew out of utopian socialism. While there is probably a great deal of truth to this, it does not go far enough, and I am going to make an expansive assertion. I believe that the origins of postmodernism are to be found in the reaction of Confucius against the Taoist logic of ancient China. Postmodernist rotational logic is related to the dialectic of Marxism. The only other non-postmodernist rotational logic I know of is that of Taoism, as illustrated by the Tai Chi symbol where the polar opposites, yin and yang, rotate -- as illustrated by opposing black and white commas. Wagner, in discourse on the “humor” of human understanding referred to above (p. 52), uses a human-rather-than-commas stylization of the Tai Chi symbol, which he calls “Twincest: one of two”. I consider this a Confucian interpretation of the animistic Taoist logic of “identity transparency”. The mutually cradling commas of the Tai Chi symbol are construed as inscribed within a circle separate from the commas, a circle representing the one.

Two subsidiary messages offered by Wagner in his “Abstract of the Argument” illustrate this (p. xv): “The wheel is too simple to be understood; its automational modeling is a ritual [Wagner's emphasis] that exhausts the possibilities of explanation rather than those of the reality it interrogates” and “If time is the difference between itself and space, and space the similarity between the two, then their negative extensional field is the physical education of the wheel”.

In Taoism unassimilated to Confucianism, however, yin becomes yang and yang becomes yin: these identity changes are The Way, the way the hexagonal pa qua tiling patterns of Heaven are decomposed under the logical operations of time. The Tai Chi symbol signifies a cipher disc (like that of Alberti) employing self-inverse ciphers, involutes. The pa qua are in tableau form. Each tableau corresponds to a rotational operator, a particular outcome of a temporal operation. It is The Book of Changes, not the book of chances. Probability is not involved. There is no third term to the logic, no separate circle (this circumstance is what mathematicians refer to as an “open region” in the complex plane, a circular disc which does not include its circumference, analytic continuation being conducted about the black and white singular points opening onto hypercomplex domains). No synthesis to thesis and antithesis. And without a separate circle, without a container, a hierarchy cannot be recursively generated: thesis, antithesis, synthesis; thesis, antithesis, synthesis; thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Role stratification, the Confucian social hierarchy, required a third term to the logic if identity-transparent gender laterality was to be twisted into a universal generative grammar of “he over she”. Marxism, like Confucianism, had no theory as to how iterations of the dialectic came to a stop; therefore, no actual theory of transition. Pure communism never emerged out of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

But not only did Alberti's Italian Renaissance have a precedent in ancient China, so did the 18th-century rationalism of a Johann Christian Bach. Voltaire, a father of the European Enlightenment, not only wrote a book on the black and the white, less well known is the fact that he was a deep student of the Confucian Analects. Enlightenment, that peculiarly Eastern state of mind, for the Westerner, issued out of European Confucianism. And it is not at all surprising that Leibniz and Newton could not see eye to eye on “fluxions”, which later came to be known as the calculus. The whole of Chinese social history, up until the present troubles with Falun Gong, could validly be viewed as an argument over interpretation of rotation in logic. And so it was in the argument over fluxions, a calculus developed to describe rotational motion of heavenly bodies. J. C. Bach's music stood between the laterality of stacked medieval monophonic melodies, melodies not counterpointed but “plainsung”, and the perfected verticality of Mozart's stacked chordal harmonies. But the logic that rotated the sacred timelessness in art music of the Middle Ages into the linear-time-bound profane incarnate in art music of the European Enlightenment was not free of argument: musical form in diatonic harmony is not to be found in the verticality of chords, but in chord progression, which is lateral motion. Where, then, is the meaning in the involved rotational logic? Perhaps this confusion (if not exactly Confucian) carried itself into the origins of utopian socialism, with its profane criticism/self-criticism sessions derived from sacred monastic meditational practices.

Utopian socialism arose out of a perceived foundering of the social contract by which the tribal animism of a supposed “all against all” was to be finally and forever overcome. Another of the subsidiary messages provided in Wagner's “Abstract of the Argument” illustrates this foundering in belief (p. xiv):

We pretend imaginary intervals into our words to turn them into language, call the echoes between our numbers “statistical reality,” pretend “efficiency” among the components of a machine or process to imagine its “working,” and pretend that working as the welfare of the social organism.

The easiest place, perhaps, to see the logic of confusion involved in the issues here is in failure of the “safety valve” for social danger of the American eastern seaboard and Europe, the foundering of the Turner Thesis on “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” read before the American Historical Association in 1893. It was during the 1890s that Silvio Gisell came up with his conception of “free money” tied to “free land”, a conception related to the labor theory of property and certainly influenced by the thoughts of Turner on tillage of the soil -- as is the present-day thought of Hernando de Soto (The Mystery of Capital, Transworld, 2000) on entitling husbandmen squatters: squatter-sovereignty. By the onset of WWI, when Marxism made its impress upon Russian history, Turner realized that the American frontier had closed. Nonetheless, in a review he published in 1914 (as excerpted and recounted by Henry Nash Smith, Virgin Land, Harvard U. Press, 1950, p. 296), Turner said that:

…“the old German 'tun'” reappeared in the “forted village” of early Kentucky and Tennessee, the “folkmoot” in popular meetings of the settlers, and the “witenagemot” in representative assemblies like the Transylvania legislature. “These facts,” he added, “carry the mind back to the warrior-legislatures in Germanic forests, and forward to those constitutional conventions now at work in our own newly-made states in the Far West… In an undergraduate address he had asserted that “The spirit of individual liberty slumbered in the depths of the German forest” from the time of the barbarian invasions of Rome…

Turner's conviction that democracy arose out of the psychological effects of the identification with Nature that the presence of free land elicited from the socius ran into trouble with closing of the frontier, because he never found a way to imagine how egalitarianism could survive the effects of industrialization and urbanization. This inability to find a way to imagine is why the Jeffersonian persuasion lost out to Hamiltonian Confucianism: there was no systematic conceptual framework at hand, indeed, no logic available, by which the physiocrat could prevail against the Cartesian-Newtonian system of the world. The “myth of the garden of the world” was a myth. Egalitarian democracy was postulated by Turner to be resident in the habitus of the “peasant proprietor”, the agrarian free-hold yeoman, the small land-tract owner subject only to fee-simple impositions of the state. Social harmony due, not to obediences, be they three in number or greater, but to natural morality, the morality inherent in nature's way which was proclaimed to be The American Way (derivative of Lao-Tzu's The Way, or was it, in this American case, Sun-Tzu's way?). Democracy, for Turner, resided in animism, a generative empathy with the natural surround. He shared this conviction with the utopian socialists who resided at New Harmony, even if he shared with them very little else. And, as the above-given quotation illustrates, he clearly felt this had something to do with the Erdgeist, the German soil spirits. The logic of the Erdgeist is that of the Taoist tutelary deities: there is no third term to their rotational propositions. We can be assured of this by looking at Hegel's centered structure. The Hegelian centered structure is not a whole that is more than the sum of its parts; the identity-transparent part is the whole, as in the physicist's understanding of a hologram, not the etymologist's understanding. Leibniz argued with Newton because his monad was a Hegelian centered structure, a transfinite set, not a limitable sequence -- but Leibniz did not fully understand this, as the required insights were inadequately elaborated during his time.

Marx left Germany when he turned his back upon the Young Hegelians; this was the moment when Marxism separated itself from utopian socialism, the moment when it became a separate circle. Marx elaborated the fullness of his dialectical theories in London where “the London Bach” had written his best music. Departure from Germany and movement to London through Paris was in the historical dialectic by which Marx decentered Hegel's centered structure: the whole of the socius was deemed greater than the sum of its parts, a rather profane Confucian moral economy. But is the dialectic actually a 3-valued logic, something that was not rigorously codified until 1921? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. That looks like a 3-valued logic, but is not. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis is the march of the Marxist syllogism, not the logical values of any given proposition. Moreover, any given synthesis becomes a thesis for the next iteration of the logical march, so even the Marxist syllogism falls short of authentic 3-valuedness.

We have had here some prehistory of postmodernism. But why would a movement intent on subverting the effects of employing binary logic -- call it postmodernism -- adopt the strategy of decentering, which actually magnifies the effects that movement claims to be subverting? What is the logic of that? When a back-reaction against European Confucianism, called French Romanticism, made its way back to a tributary society of its foe's place of origin -- Vietnam -- it gave rise to a New Poetry Movement which was in significant measure a rebellion against the rules of Tang-style poetry. The practitioner of New Poetry asked: Why do I have to say the dog goes out, the cat comes in, when what I want to describe is the beauty of the moon? No more crab canons for me! This practitioner simply described the moon; he did not attempt to decenter it. Let us look again at Turner. Turner's account of the origins of democracy in the free land beyond the westward moving frontier neglects the fact that this “free” land was not really free. The land in question was inhabited by millions and millions of animists who had to be killed so as to free the land capable of inculcating democracy within the society of killers. The first village massacre took place in the 1630s on Long Island, perpetrated by Europeans; the frontier moved west from there. Leaving aside the questions of slavery and whether or not the Homestead Act alienated public lands for the land speculators and railroad barons, it is well to consider that introjection is its own logic. The vanquisher psychologically “eats” signifiers of the vanquished: a form of cannibalism conducted within the collective unconscious. Regardless of Turner's assertions, it is unlikely that German Einfuhlung and nature spiritism were the primary psychological forces driving free-soil transcendentalism. The American yeoman's (etymological) holographic worldview in New Harmony and its meaning and significance for the world of anthropology-become-a-sub-discipline-of-rhetoric likely is to be found in the logic of introjection.

What is the logic behind why anthropology has become a sub-discipline of rhetoric? Postmodernism chose to violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, not the Law of Distributed Middle which was no less available. Technically stated, this latter logical law is: the case must be either A or not-A. The middle is distributed to the poles. Violation of this law yields “fuzzy logic”: infinite gradations in shades of gray between Voltaire's black and white, between A and not-A; the real number continuum between the Boolean values 0 and 1. Violations of the Law of Non-Contradiction are quintessentially rhetorical, as the messages presented in Wagner's “Abstract of the Argument” clearly illustrate; whereas, violations of the Law of Distributed Middle lead into the visual and plastic arts, and the engineering of better refrigerators. Though there be a modest movement of deconstructionist architecture, deconstructionism in the visual and plastic arts has largely confined itself to conceptual art, and, as Arakawa's work clearly illustrates, the involved visual presentations are predominantly linguistically focused.

The act of decentering projects a separate circle, a container, a dialectical and dialogical ego-sphere: collectively, the state (with a command economy, or no). Introjection must have an “introjector”. Emergence of linguistic dominance in the breakdown of the bi-cameral mind involved creation of an anthropology of the subject. For the alinguistic bi-cameral mind there is no subject and no object (direct or otherwise); there just is is-ness. If the intent is to protect integrity of the separate subject from the assaults made upon it by discovery in 19th-century higher mathematics (e.g., transfinite sets) and 20th-century New Physics (e.g., schizophenogenic multi-worlds wave-function), challenging validity of the Law of Distributed Middle is not the way. This challenge leads to infinite sets in the selfhood, to infinite shades of gray between the intrapsychic contrasexual he and she, not to hauteautonomie. Infinite sets in the selfhood must be castigated as illegitimate infinite regress (the “limit” method used by the calculus), and the meditational self-observation revealing these sets must be attacked as mere retroflexion. Structure décentrée. Epistémé to the rescue! These positions are integral aspects of French semiologie.

Why a chapter on Johann Christian Bach in a book ostensibly about New Guinea? Because of “self-organization by noise”, a self-organization where part and whole are incommensurable (and certainly not “identity transparent”). Ever since 1949, Professor Nicolas Bourbaki, an AKA for several generations of French mathematicians, has led the struggle to exorcise higher mathematics, indeed, all of Western civilization, from the 19th-century Germanic scofflaw intromitted: the enfolded and centered structure. As Wagner says in his Bach chapter (p. 171):

It could be said that music elicits a nonphysical energy, that it defines Karl Pribram's idea of holographic brain functioning more concisely than David Bohm's notion of a holographic universe could validate it, but undercuts the “implicate structure” of that universe more incisively than the holographic mentality necessary to comprehend it.

Sufficiently circular to throw up the knee-jerking fog of intellectual aporia required for adequate dissimulation? What is the “it” in this sentence? If “it” is the music that could be said, then the subject “it” is not the rejected “implicate” object; but if “it” is music qua music, then the subject “it” is the rejected “implicate” object. An etymologist's notion of hologram is okay in neuroscience, but a physicist's notion of hologram is not okay in cosmology. Why? Because enfolded implicate order is the essence of a centered structure. Can't have quantum physics hypothesizing, let alone experimentally demonstrating, something like that! To the tune of how many folio volumes by now has Professor Doctor Bourbaki exorcised via his European Confucianism? Theory of numbers; fields; set theory; associative rings and algebras; combinatorial analysis; order, lattices; measure and integration; integral transforms; algebraic topology; groups and generalizations; functions of a complex variable; and on and on. By treatment under judicious selection, all brought into binary-logical order -- despite Gödel; despite m-valued logics. Self-organization by noise in lieu of implicate ordering. Order through disorder. The actual through concatenation of the probable. Embracing noise and assimilating it to music is one technique of the exorcism, one means of escape. The rhyme and reason of a chapter on Bach in a book about New Guinea.

If self-observation were not retroflexion, that would mean that the selfhood, the separate circle, were dis-sociate-able -- which would not be what Wagner regards “the anthropologist's choice” (p. 168): “If one takes the anthropologist's choice, takes the social (conversational, dialogic) implication of this over the individual and psychological…” The anthropologist -- having made this choice for multiplicity within the socius but not the selfhood (particularly multiplicity in the logics of selfhood), and therefore not having actually empirically practiced self-observation in any sustained meditative fashion -- uses binary logic and its taken derivative, linear time, as a basis for deeming self-observation retroflexion. But not merely self-observation as retroflexion, by direct binary-logic implication (p. 166) “the retrocausality of music's pragmatic”, its (p. 167) “retrolanguaging” and “retroeffect” via its “rememberable content” -- for, remember, it was Brentano's thesis that time is in remembering. An account of “music's pragmatic” is provided in this book on New Guinea via an account of Heinrich Schenker and Victor Zuckerkandal. In this “account”, I recognize little of Schenker and Zuckerkandal, though it must be admitted I studied them over 30 years ago. Nonetheless, I feel confident enough of my memory to assert that Wagner confuses the method of Schenker's demonstration with the action of that which is demonstrated. He maintains that via Schenker's “germ motif”, Schenker's “fundamental structure”, (p. 165) “we have in musical form itself a causal deconstruction”, that (p. 166) “the formal structure collapses on itself.” This (p. 167) “iconic outcome” -- which, says Wagner, some falsely regard “pictures in music” -- “constitutes its own remnant” through “rememberable content and continuity”. It is not that Schenker's method of harmonic analysis demonstrated existence of a “germ motif”, a “picture in music”, which Strauss and Beethoven, among others, believed to be the generator of their compositions. “Retrolanguaging” in music would not allow this, would disallow archetypal picture as creator; the iconic must be effect, outcome -- for, otherwise, the Hegelian centered structure would again slip in, with its animistic dissociation of the separate-circle ego sphere. No, according to Wagner (p. 169), “musical works create a feeling [Wagner's emphasis] for logic…” It is not that internalization of a logic of expectations (learned, for instance, as modulatory schemata in harmony class, ear and voice training) creates a feeling for how music ought to sound, and that world-historical master composers transcend their training to get back to the aural bare percept so as to directly perceive “the aspirations of the sounds themselves”, to quote composer Toru Takemitsu, those “aspirations” being the generative form “pictured” in the composer's awareness before he sets about the act of composing. For such a form could only predicate an enfolded implicate order ontologically and logically preceding retrolanguaging, i.e., a domain of Hegelian centered structures. No, the meaning in musical form is a (p. 166) “participatory strain” that is “signed in conversation” by performer and listener through their “faculty of reading” the piece. Otherwise, the very existence of music itself could become a threat to the foundations of linguistic analysis! Underlying, and ontologically and logically “preceding”, verbal linguistic expression would be a generative semantics, an enfolded implicate order of centered structures. Carried in the quantum wave properties of superconductant DNA, perhaps? Call the corpus of such structures “music-sculpture”: Musculpt. Horror upon horrors! Why “The horror, the horror”? There is a step between this and the overt identity transparency of tribal animism. Musculpt (or whatever you wish to call it) is an evocation of gematria and the Cabala, of mantra and yantra -- those historical echoes of the female fertility cults. After all, Marx was the exemplar of all possible secular Rabbis -- and that too is part of the prehistory of postmodernism. Not to mention the fact that the quantum wave equation was written by the author of What is Life? (a book about the genetic molecule) while he was practicing Tantric sexual yoga.

Expressing linguistic dominance and its linguistic-theory origins, postmodernism chose challenge of the Law of Non-Contradiction, a choice made in extremis as a last-ditch effort to save binary logic in face of the mounting threats being made upon it. Choice to embrace the right binary-logic fallacy does not necessarily involve rejecting binary logic; Fallacy of Contradiction or no such fallacy, binary logic remains intact. Choice to embrace the wrong binary-logic fallacy, however, may not leave binary logic intact. Post's and Lukasiewicz's m-valued logics, interpreted in relation to the notion of truth-value, embrace the Fallacy of Undistributed Middle: thus was fuzzy logic born. Fuzzy logic is not binary logic. This happened well before the advent of postmodernism qua postmodernism. It was part of the prehistory of postmodernism. 1921 was the year in which m-valued logics were first rigorously codified. These logics potentially represent a far greater assault upon the effects of employing binary logic than is challenge to the binary-logic Law of Non-Contradiction. If the intent of postmodernism was to destroy the social, political, and economic effects of employment of binary logic, why did it not embrace m-valued logics? Recognize this as a rhetorical question.

Introjection, as C. G. Jung has taught us, is part of a larger psychic equation: The Psychology of the Transference. By virtue of introversion and extroversion, no mere functional quaternity; indeed, a doubled quarternity: numerically, Cayley's eight-tuples. Eight-tuples are hypernumbers beyond the rotational quaternions. Rotation into imaginary dimensions transpires through the good offices of the square-root of minus-one (and other hypernumbers). Was the Taoist logic of ancient China actually a rotational binary logic? The cipher disc of the Tai Chi symbol signified an involutory decomposer of self-inverse logical values; it did not represent the properties of the logic itself. What was the pa qua tiling tableau, if not the coding space of m-valued logics? The binary order of logical value is an involutory decomposer (likely involving Euler's and Riemann's zeta functions and the hypercomplex forms thereof) of this tableau, the operations of which are mappable via Gödel-numbered propositions. If there is any natural inculcator of egalitarian democracy capable of standing in face of industrialization and urbanization, it is to be found in the nature of Nature's logic itself as mapped into the formalism of m-logically-valued monetary units.

I have always thought that m-logically-valued monetary units could be implemented short of global catastrophe; but I have never thought that m-logically-valued monetary units would be so implemented. Even in aftermath of WWII, it was not possible to get consensus for a truly functional international monetary system -- even in so far as such was then entertained by the two leading negotiators who saw pretty much eye-to-eye. It, therefore, has never occurred to me to brainstorm probable consequences of the “could”, only those associated with the “would”. One just has to, in regard to certain matters, consider that once said is enough said. One then tries simply to get on about business. This is a way to “be nice”. But, obviously, that doesn't often work, as first encounters inevitably yield variants of the “same thoughts”. The following is by no means an original thought on my part, as I have heard it quite independently expressed, in one form or another, on numerous occasions over the last several decades. Once said, apparently, is not enough said. In no way to discount individual pain, suffering, deaths in recent and present wars, holocausts, famines, epidemics, natural disasters, still, it must be acknowledged that considering, say, more people died in the Spanish flu pandemic than in both World War One and World War Two combined, coupled with the fact that planetary population is considerably greater now than it was 100 years ago, it is reasonable to suspect that the global transition so many sense as impending and ominous has not yet begun seriously to take its full collective toll. What is likely to transpire when full brunt of that begins seriously to fall upon an already over-stressed planetary population? One speculation has been that something like happened in Russia following WWI will blanket the globe in the ensuing rage, hysteria, and intellectual/values/morals void: any identifiable population subset conceivably construable as culpable will be hunted down in the resultant frenzy. One has only to contemplate the mass psychodynamics of Cambodia, the Balkans, and Rwanda to entertain such possibilities. Putting some grass-roots nascent “organizing factors” in place prior to emergence of the “full brunt” is not a particularly risky or even spendthrift prophylactic; if there is no such emergence, wonderful! and little has been lost.

My early interest in the Hamilton-Jefferson debates on the national debt was no mere youthful indiscretion: I worked in ma-and-pa nurseries for 15 years as a nurseryman, gardener, and garden designer not completely by happenstance, but significantly by design -- even though, in all that time, I had only one opportunity to design and construct a garden I actually liked, aesthetic education of the average homeowner leaving something to be desired. Voluntarily reducing wants to needs and needs to necessities was the MO employed to enhance quality of immediate experience while living in American physical space and exiting American social space so as to protect personal psychological space. Efficacy of this life-world strategy petered out by around 1980, as the ma-and-pa sole proprietorship in plant husbandry was superceded by application of methods pioneered in the fast food industry: tree no longer living being, but Campbell's Soup can. It was with the Civil War that Hamiltonian democracy finally triumphed over the Jeffersonian-physiocratic ideal of the yeoman proprietor and the American vision of “The Garden of the World” was fully demonstrated a myth -- but it took another century or so to weed-out pockets of Jeffersonian resistance. It would not be too far off the mark to entertain the notion that slavery as the launching catapult and flight deck for America economy was not terminated by the Civil War, only transformed from its hard focused forms to its soft distributed forms. Reconstruction was the transition period wherein the military staffing methods Lincoln's generals perfected were first applied to American business culture so as to approach the problem of increasing productivity while simultaneously driving down overhead costs. This reached something of an early apotheosis during the Robber Baron Era and cusped in the late-1920s. Only in the 1990s was it possible to return to conditions characteristic of the earlier apotheosis. One simply has to wonder about coming resurrection of the earlier cusp. Given the forms of uses to which the new technologies are presently being put, will second cusp transubstantiate by imposition of 1984 in 2012 via globalization of American Animal Farm? If so, how ironic and regressed a fashion to have given Jefferson the final say over Hamilton!

I'll try to offer some useful observations relative to each of the questions you raise. It must be remembered that this is still very much in the realms of a “seed idea” and also that there would be staged entry and “evolution-through-use like with a natural language” so that all questions and answers must be regarded as existing over graded scales in terms of “what stage?”, and so on:

(1) WHAT KIND OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WOULD THEY CARRY AND INTO WHICH FIELD WOULD THAT APPLY? The more familiar people become with the basic notion by using such monetary units in primitive stages of application, the more user-friendly the involved technologies become, and the more relaxed the political constraints on permitted applications, the wider would the domain of “additional information they could carry” become. Though m-logically-valued monetary units have to be permitted from above, they can only be implemented from below. Top-down implementation is impossible because the information to be processed can be generated only from the bottom-up. And authentic m-LOGICALLY-valued monetary units would be a late stage, following upon well-tested local use of m-valued (in the sense of mathematical functions, not logical-values of propositions) monetary units. Price (currency value being a specific case) here is considered a market “operator”, definable as a mathematical function, orchestrating systemic self-definition and self-organization: price as “autopoietic operator”. Employment of m-valued functions would give the price-operator more dimensions of orchestration capability than it presently possesses. Employment of m-LOGICALLY-valued propositions on m-valued functions as price-operator would further expand the possibilities for market orchestration of self-organization by the price-operator. The only concrete discussions of this I have participated in transpired in relation to a planning effort regarding the town of Cesky Krumlov, CR. But that planning process never got so far as to generate a project to identify LOCAL sustainable development indicators. These indicators would be tagged to a local monetary unit. In the case of Cesky, a probable future of the town involved tourism development, aspirations to become a cultural center, and the social, economic, and landscape ecology threats and opportunities these entailed. Implementation of a single-valued local exchange unit, along the lines of “Ithaca dollars”, a standard LETS (Local Exchange Trading System) unit which would exist parallel with the national currency, would in itself minimally economically define Cesky as a distinct economic entity with its unique properties, needs, aspirations, threats, opportunities, and so on (while not isolating it from the larger economic context). This is the beginning of a transparent porous “border”. With a LETS, people can make certain local purchases and wages (according to my understanding, “Ithaca dollars” were initially “Ithaca hours” put in at the local co-op outlet for grains, granola, et cetera, serving the myriad hippie communes existing in the hinterland of Ithaca) in a currency that will not be accepted outside the local area. A further stage of development in the local monetary system would involve placing one, and later more than one, color-coded index on the local currency base. Participants would receive wages and make purchases in currency base plus color-coded indices. Prices on participant products would, therefore, include color-coded indices. This would begin very primitively (and totally ineffectively) and evolve through use into increasing levels of effectiveness (having the benefits, early on, of liberally allowing trial-and-error development by virtue of [a] local application effects only and [b] each such local effect grows with period of use and range of applications employed). If the individual participant did not have enough of the right color-codes in his account, he could not make the desired purchases. On a personal level, this would subtly modulate his labor choices so he could accumulate the types and amounts of color-codes he felt he wanted relative to desired purchases. On a producer level, subtle modulation would occur with regard to ability to purchase factors of production and pay wages in the required color-codes necessary to draw the required categories of skilled labor. Trading of color-codes amongst participants would not be prohibited or problematic, as the system is interested in increasing market competency at self-organizing aggregate behaviors, not in controlling individual market actions. Trading of color-codes likely would eventually evolve into something like a derivatives market. Hence, the system has no utopian aspirations, only the desire to step onto a path whereby level of self-organizational competency would be able to improve over time as categories of “externalities” were brought within the purview of the market. These color-coded indices would be chosen in relation to identified local sustainable development indicators. A given index would not be an indicator itself; it would be some critical variable related to the (measurable) indicator that could be economically tagged to the currency base and would, initially, provide information about how the indicator fairs over time, and later could begin to subtly modulate collective behavior relative to the indicator. Looking at strip development worldwide, we clearly see there is no adequate means for urban and regional planning guidelines (not speaking here of command-economy planning, which has proven itself of too low an order of functionality) to interface with market mechanisms (legislation is too gross, untimely, and vested-interest compromised a control mechanism). In the beginning, one would try to choose indicators and critical variables as locally-specific as possible. Only as such monetary systematics began to be employed at multiple proximal local locations would it become possible for this to become envisioned as the beginning of, for instance, an alternative to trading legislatively mandated pollution quotas. This concept is being CONCEPTUALLY elaborated from general principles to particular principles, so it being still at seed-idea level of elaboration, and the notion being conceived as one to evolve through use, it not only seems not possible, but unwise, to attempt to prescriptively project what types of information could and could not be tagged to the indicators to be stacked on the currency base. Choices with regard to types of information (from realms of what is currently regarded by economists as “externalities”) to be employed would be arrived at out of local circumstance in the process of developing local sustainable development indicators. I don't feel this response is an avoidance of the question you raise, so much as description of an approach to take in attempting to arrive at answers to it.

(2) YOU HINTED THAT THE MONETARY UNITS WOULD OBTAIN THEIR VALUE THROUGH PUBLIC GAMING ANALOGOUS TO MULTI-SCENARIO PLANNING. HOW CAN WE IMAGINE THAT MORE SPECIFICALLY? Here I would first refer you to “StratPlan CD-ROM Series Proposal” posted under Chiang Mai Papers on the MOON website. This represents a different take on the potential of an “electronic commons” than that of the Gates take or the Wired take on P2P. It could be thought of as a way to enhance the self-organizational potential of smart-crowd behaviors by adding some formalized dimensions and memory and processing capabilities to informal processes characteristic of communities of practice (which emerge in face of bureaucratically-imposed double-binds). About a decade ago, there was a book written by a Northern California sociologist on “communities of practice”. Unfortunately, I no longer have a reference, though I spent a week at a Sundance conference on New Physics approaches to corporate organization where he was a presenter and had periodic discussions with him. This approach to P2P could also be thought of as a way to superintegrate multiple single-issue referenda, a way of distributing them into articulated patterns where voting is replaced by “plays” in a game conducted in a state of continuous public posting. Game theory, double-bind theory, mathematical group theory, and the like could become part of the “machine language” underlying the logic-framework within which the software for the game is written. These areas of mathematical theory, while not explicit in the user-interface, would be applied to the multiple-scenarios planning algorithms (via learning-capable neural-network programming and multi-media/VR-type display) mapped onto specific uniquely delineated local town-planning issues and venues. Actual initial trial-and-error attempts at application would not proceed until a threshold of consensus emerged through the process of participatory computer gaming of public-sector issues (this use of “gaming” does not refer to gambling, but to computer games like SimCity, and the like). This gaming process would weed out likely-to-fail scenarios by over and over playing through, via game simulation, all the contingencies players were able to come up with -- thus minimizing the quotient of hazard involved in public policy formulation. Doing this on a continuously public-posted basis would contribute greatly to meeting the minimal conditions for emergence of consensus. One possible implementation methodology for the multiple-scenarios planning schemata emerging into consensus would be that of m-valued (later m-logically-valued) monetary units. All the processes of formulating local sustainable development indicators, identifying the critical variables to be tagged to color-coded indices to be stacked on the currency base would be aspects of the computer game played by all interested participant parties. Implications, possible and probable economic, social, political, and so on outcomes based on choices between involved factors would be simulated by the game via all the multi-media/VR bells and whistles. As sophistication of the game evolved through use, through cycles of memory feedback, and via software/hardware development, the ability of the game to simulate the public policy environment would grow. To be more specific, I would have to go into the details of multiple-scenarios strategic planning methodology, which I do not presently feel equipped to do. There are a lot of sites on the web describing this methodology, which would need to be adapted for the present purposes (with a lot of changes being implied). As regards the required software, it appears that some of the necessary work is being done in other contexts, most interestingly, perhaps, by a group working in Brussels. I refer you to their website http://www.fo.am/softbomb/.

(3) WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SUB-SYSTEMS OF MODERN SOCIETY? TO WHAT DEGREE WOULD YOU CONSIDER THEM OBSOLETE IN AN M-VALUE-WORLD? OR HOW WOULD THEY TRANSFORM? I suppose you mean other than economics. Well, first of all, I do not imagine this notion as an attempt to reduce everything to economics; rather, as a means to initiate a process by which to make the largely arbitrary and prescribed-for-institutional-need disciplinarian boundaries increasingly transparent so that eventually they might become virtually obsolete or like “cultural lags” without real substance, this “making” to come about through a self-organization of the knowledge base via correlation of the forms of process identifiable in nature. Many of the subdisciplines of physics might, for instance, in this manner be seen to be largely higher or lower logical-orders of the same underlying processes -- the same basic processes seen through different cognitive lenses. A similar principle might apply to currently largely distinct areas of culture, say architecture and music. Yannis Xenakis' book (early-'60s) Formalized Music (where description is provided of how the Phillips Pavilion at the 1958 Brussels World Fair was designed-composed as a piece for string orchestra -- the form of the piece being built as the pavilion, and the composition itself emerging out of the act of writing a quantum wave equation in m-valued functions) is suggestive in this regard. Even with all the techno-developments since then, there has been little subsequently done along these lines. Also, as a consequence, to reduce the index of specialization that has evolved in modern society and concomitantly in cognition and conscious access to the array of available psychological functions. Using, say, musical and/or plastic-art modes of thought, for instance, to evaluate hard science, economic, political questions. I feel a biofeedback-equipped isolation-flotation tank would likely contribute greatly to such an effort. This is something like an extension of the Unified Science Movement early in the 20th century or what L. L. Whyte advocated in his provocative book (1948, I think) entitled The Next Development in Man. Evolution of the techno-base, rooted as it increasingly is upon quantum-relativistic principles and processes, is already doing this to a certain degree (by virtue of the bleed-through of the m-valued properties of the involved physics) -- though there is considerable attempt to use the new technologies in service to maintenance of distinctions, processes, and power structures clearly long since outmoded. Use of the new technologies to create a surveillance society is an example of the latter negative development -- consciously justified by recourse to 9/11, but clearly having a deeper fundamental motivation. It should be noted that, though I usually mention Schrödinger's wave-function in relation to the m-valued, this is only because I wish to emphasize the potential role of m-valued logics, whereas virtually all of general relativity theory and its extensions intimately involve m-valued functions and their treatments in manifolds: focusing in specifically on this correspondence is likely to yield further insights. In my view, it is not so much that any given area of knowledge is or will become outmoded; what is outmoded is how these areas are related to one another and the very conception of how areas can and cannot be related. These “other areas” would transform as normative modes of cognition transformed in wake of the “evolution through use” of evermore elaborate multi-media/VR user interfaces encouraged greater and greater employment of cross-modal faculties on part of the user: more reliance on the cognitive value of emotions, exploration of synaesthetic perceptual and proprioceptive capacities, colored-hearing, colored-touch, and so on as problems in the traditionally-disciplinarian areas were presented in polymorphic sensory mode. Even taste polymorphism, for instance. We use “inner taste” (intuition) in loose fashion to make evaluations; why not create a computer-gamed CAD environment whereby taste-patching to visual-pattern recognition and/or tonal-ear for musical form could directly access the taste sensory dimension as a means to “think about” local sustainable development indicators, for instance? The multi-dimensional (and less directly the m-valued and the m-logically-valued) aspects of a data set, in whatever area, would be represented (on the “machine language” level and logical march up to the interface) in terms of cross-patched sensory dimensions. The possibilities for pursing cross-modal correlations in depth as aids to synaesthetic problem preparation and presentation are apparently open ended. The value of doing this is to overcome the blinders imposed by psychological- and temperamental-type prejudices in problem preparation, separation of data from noise, pattern recognition, and so on. Stallknecht's and Brumbaugh's insightful book The Compass of Philosophy (1954) presents a history of Western philosophical controversy as epiphenomenal to psychological types, whereby given philosophers advocated only positions on issues compatible with their tacit (largely unconscious) type specialization. Such built-in prejudices would be reduced in the manner described and type-wed areas of culture (plastic art, music, mathematics, hard science, social science, literary criticism) -- the whole “two-cultures” discontinuity -- would similarly abate with increasing use of such computer-gaming media. This is happening, but largely by way of attempts to integrate it into existing political, economic, academic, and other processes. I advocate granting much greater autonomy to properties of the synaesthetic medium itself in determining the fundamental properties of the processes the medium is to engage, represent, simulate, govern -- to the point of allowing very definition of the processes to emerge in-process. Initially, a relative shift over what is presently the case in focus from design to designing the design system itself would be indicated. Though, in the specific case of implementation devices like m-valued monetary units, applications must be permitted from above, this permission is required only well along. All the preparatory work can be done without permission -- without consent, even. And it can be done largely in areas other than economics and politics -- the most sensitive areas, those areas most likely to draw censoring reactions before capability of dealing adequately with them have evolved. Obtaining access to the requisite resources, of course, is a separate issue in some respects.

(4) COULD YOU IMAGINE M-VALUED ELECTIONS? HOW? I would have a tendency to view this possibility as a transitional mechanism only. Using the electronic commons to improve systems of representation or voting on single-issue referenda is certainly not to be rejected, but it must be realized that this is an example of using the new technologies to shore up the Cartesian-Newtonian institutionalization. Such transitional mechanisms would be more interesting were the question of redistricting of voting districts or redrawing administrative jurisdictions addressed thereby -- then this use of the electronic commons might become a real transitional device. And this leads into the next question you raise.

(5) AND HOW CAN WE IMAGINE THE M-VALUED FRACTAL NON-BORDERS YOU MENTION? This has to do with finding the means to keep a political system in what could be called a continuing “condition” of pre-governance, pre-statehood, or maybe even a “condition” of Kulturenation as opposed to Staatsnation. In studying Vietcong boundary changes in the pre-government stage (preceding the proto-government stage) of the insurgency war in South Vietnam, we noticed that details of boundary changes were simultaneously expressed in correlated changes in all identified bureaucratic variables operative within the Viet Cong (political) Infrastructure (VCI) -- what is currently called “a terrorist network”. Once this was understood to a certain degree, these changes were designated as “indicators” of upcoming enemy activity. As the “environment of the combat” changed, the administrative boundaries changed in response, and the coupled bureaucratic variables likewise changed in lockstep. Current network-centric forms of insurgent organization may have moved to even more elaborated forms of spontaneous self-organization (all such likely conforming to the principles of collective and cooperative behaviors studied by quantum physicists in the special case of material systems like those involving superconductivity). Captured documents containing new (addressing) Letter Box Number codes for clandestine dead drops were examples of how first indication of such changes were identified by intelligence analysts. The VCI had an extremely elaborate clandestine postal system, money orders included. These changes preceded new operational initiatives. (As an aside, it should be noted that the U.S. command was uninterested in, and unable to assimilate or appreciate significance of these results of intelligence analysis based on new principles of analysis that emerged in situ within a “community of practice” that itself emerged in response to bureaucratically-imposed double-binds; moreover the implications of the analysis were counter to conventional views enforced by the command and, in cusp, the “community of practice” was sequestered, physically relocated, and re-named so as to keep its “command-position”-subverting influence in abeyance). This dynamism in the VCI clandestine apparat seemed to us unique in history. We knew of no other governmental or nascent-governmental framework functioning in this fashion. Constitutionally democratic institutions, for instance, have many countervailing-forces mechanisms built-in to make such changes cumbersome to a degree precluding such constant dynamical change -- dynamical change similar to that seen in natural ecological processes in response to environmental changes: climate shifts, and so on. Historical studies of communist underground apparats (to the limited degree we were able to accomplish such studies) indicated that this dynamism was NOT a feature characteristic of communist, or even the more general modern partisan-warfare, patterns of organization. The judgment was made that this dynamism related primarily to age-old conventions of animistic practice and the patterns of voluntarism expressing the anarchism of traditional informal village social structures (existing within the formalized mandarinate framework). We entertained the notion that such dynamism was significantly more characteristic of the insurgency in South Vietnam than it had been of the northerner-dominated Viet Minh phase of the war because of the disproportionate influence of anarcho-syndicalism and Trotskyism upon the southern wing of the party in the 1930s, particularly during the Popular Front period -- Tran van Giau and Tran Bac Dang, for the knowledgeable insider, being the critical pivotal personalities in mediating such influences, and later using them as a stimulus to initiation of the postwar Doi Moi renovation movement. (Another aside: I would not, should not, and cannot personally claim undue credit for reaching such conclusions -- though I have, perhaps, pursued implications of these notions longer than others involved. Such insights were products of the emergent “community of practice” as a whole. This fact figures large in my general orientation to political and social theory. Other individuals were critical in reaching insights. The individual most responsible has never become publicly known. Sam Adams, though one of the most informed individuals, and surely the most publicly known, assimilated subtleties of such perspectives only in the run up to the Westmoreland vs. CBS trial, as he, and only he, systematically interviewed all major participants in the emergent “community of practice”. I am informed about such results of Sam's activities only by virtue of long walks in Sam's Leesburg cow pastures. Vietnam-era stereotypes preclude for most people the possibility that such sophisticated frameworks of thought could have emerged within the U.S. military. Sam Adams' failed attempt to make these frameworks publicly known was an object lesson, and, for believers in processes of self-organization, there is little decisive impulse to try to control the processes of history by making concerted attempts to contravene the public will to remain uninformed. Larger patterns of transformation may be involved than those immediately viewable.) I will offer a partial account of one concrete illustrative example (a full account could involve a whole book) of how, for the Vietcong, alteration of a specific bureaucratic variable (job description of the chief of a VCI functional element) was “mapped” on a specific geographical boundary change (without giving names, places, dates, and so on). I will then discuss how this can be lifted out of context and totally abstracted into the notion of what is presently called a “fractal boundary”. This will be written from perspective of the insurgent. Evolution of the combat presented circumstances whereby a provincial capital could be targeted for large-scale attack, whereas in the past such circumstances did not prevail. Many factors were involved in making this possible. Once a decision was made that such an attack was to be mounted, an infiltration corridor for supplies and personnel had to be opened. The quickest way to accomplish this was to entice enemy mechanized units to physically cut the corridor through the jungle by attacking such mechanized units and retreating slow enough for them to keep after the attackers as those attackers moved along the path of the desired corridor. In preparation for the opportunity thus to be created, VC district boundaries surrounding the provincial capital were gerrymandered such that the corridor thus to be brought into being lay within the administrative purview of a single district from point of origin all the way into the provincial capital (unity of command). Normally, the rear-service units of the local-force and regional-force battalions handle all supply and re-supply operations for military units on attack. This way of doing it in the case of a major attack on a provincial capital, however, would present the possibility of confusion, poor timing, lack of adequate labor, and so on. The solution lay in transferring responsibility from the rear-service units to the Finance and Economy section of the newly refashioned district party committee and its subordinate party and non-party elements. The job description of the chief of the F&E section was accordingly re-written with a changed area of responsibility and operational area incorporating many of the responsibilities normally accorded to the rear-service units, deleting many of the responsibilities normally given the district F&E section, and involving allocation of personnel recruitment and transfer authority not normally in the purview of this section. These changes, mandated by necessity of the prospective infiltration corridor, set up a ripple effect redounding upon the rear-service units, all VCI sections/sub-sections and military units impacted by the transfers of authority and personnel, which changes themselves had ripple effects, and so on. The borders of contiguous districts were concomitantly changed, of course, giving new responsibilities and modifying old ones. Since the newly formed district's F&E section was given such a huge load of new responsibilities, this was viewed as an occasion requiring implementation of reverse representation, not simply a promotion for the chief of section. From the Central Executive Committee of the involved Province Party Committee a staff assistant was sent in person to the physical location of the district F&E section to represent the provincial CEC at the district level. This forced operational changes upon the district Party Committee that had to be explicitly spelled our ahead of time so the lines of responsibility, communication, and authority were clearly defined. Now imagine such mutually interactive things transpiring simultaneously at myriad locations across the whole theater of war with respect to dozens and dozens of categories of initiative and response, involving not only new infiltration corridors, but a large number of other factors affecting issues of partitioning. You can see how the boundaries prevailing within the system would be in a virtually continuous state of transformation along with all their correlated bureaucratic variables. Anyone studying details of this at the time was simply mind-boggled by the overwhelming complexity of the transformational processes involved. Very few made a serious attempt to comprehend it. Now imagine that there is a VCI bureaucratic function space within which all these relations are mapped. This space would be represented by an n-dimensional manifold, the value of n being determined by the number of bureaucratic variables mapped onto the manifold. Bureaucratic functions would be represented by algebraic functionals on the space. Some of these functionals would be single-valued; others, m-valued. An example of an m-valued functional on this n-dimensional manifold would be the multiple functions of a role. VCI cadres wore many hats, each hat representing a given role with its many functions. A Riemann surface would be required to represent this within the n-dimensional manifold. When one imagines the relations amongst all the roles and functions of roles manifest in VCI bureaucratic function space, a universal covering of the function space would be required to represent it. This was described with something like a poem in our novel The Moon of Hoa Binh. Similar modes of representation could be imagined for all the other bureaucratic variables mapped onto the manifold. One of those other variables is geographical partitioning of administrative responsibility per functions per roles. Represent the geographical border involved as a whole-integer dimension of the representation space, this whole-integer dimension existing in a Euclidian subspace of the manifold. Represent the bureaucratic variables correlated to the geographical border as fractal dimensions of the representation space, these fractal dimensions existing in an m-fractal-dimensional non-Euclidian subspace, each fractal dimension coupled to a given bureaucratic variable. The entire border -- configuration of the whole-integer dimension and the dependent functional describing its fractal dimensions -- would be represented by a p-form on the n-dimensional manifold. In the Euclidian subspace, only the whole integer dimensional configuration is directly visible; yet, change that configuration and functional behaviors mapped on the dependent fractal dimensions would change in concert. I believe that something like this was tacitly carried in the collective unconscious of those participating in the VCI -- mediated by age-old animistic notions of identity transparency and Buddhological notions of sacred space. A fairly elaborate suggestion (without going very far into bureaucratic details) of how this might have been so is provided by Thongchai Winichakul in Siam Mapped (UH Press, 1994) wherein he describes the process of how the modernist Western notion of geographical borders was imposed on the border-free notions of public administration (tributary relations) prevalent in Southeast Asia prior to Western incursion. Such imposition collapsed the n-dimensional manifold of public administration down to a figment of itself. If we now lift the whole n-dimensional conception completely out of the context of warfare, out of association with communism, out of the predispositions imposed by any given political philosophy and look at it purely as a heuristic general political systems model, the fractal subspace of the entire border could be regarded as an electronic processor of the non-viewable functions of the whole-integer dimensional Euclidian boundary -- a processor employing q-bits and m-logically-valued propositions that could be incorporated into an “electronic commons”. Viewed in this fashion, some of the fractal dimensions of the border could -- given m-valued and m-logically-valued monetary units -- be tagged to sustainable development indicators (not, in this case, “indicators” of projected enemy activity). Were this the case, then the entire border -- both its whole integer and fractal dimensions -- could function as a fractal boundary with fractal entrapment capabilities. The configuration of the viewable border would change as “entrapped” political and economic variables altered in response to a changing environment (physical as well as socio-politico-economic) -- and bureaucratic functions would shift accordingly. Market behaviors and elements of bureaucratic administration would be articulated, not by cumbersome and largely untimely legislative procedures, but by more subtly defined functionals.

(6) DO YOU SEE POSSIBILITIES FOR M-VALUED LAWS, GAMED OUT SIMILARLY TO THE MONETARY UNITS, OR WOULD LAWS SIMPLY BECOME SUPERFLUOUS IN A SOCIETY BASED UPON M-VALUED MONETARY-UNITS? One would imagine that the index of legal prescription, no less than the index of decision-need, would be on a sliding scale relative to how elaborated the m-logically-valued processing domain of the electronically-embodied fractal dimensions of the system became. This is not a utopian conception, so I would guess that there would never come a time when legal prescription and the need for human decisions could be dispensed with. There are many reasons to hope that such a thing was never attempted. Optimally, there would be slow evolution through a great number of phase transitions so as to minimize adaptational stress of implementation.

(7) WHAT OTHER, M-VALUED CODE COULD SCIENTISTS USE INSTEAD OF THE TRUE/FALSE DISTINCTION? This has been happening to a certain degree for quite some time. Rigorous account of m-valued logics was provided for the first time in 1921. Attempts have been made to employ 3-valued logic in quantum theory since the early-1930s. “Fuzzy logic” is a particular interpretation of m-valued logics. Fuzzy logic has many applications in physics and engineering (the Japanese, in particular, have applied it, for instance, to make refrigerators more self-regulative). George Soros applied his interpretation of the self-referential propositions forming the basis of m-valued logics to formulate his concept of “market reflexivity” which became the basis of his approach to speculation in the currency markets; this was very successful, it might be noted. Many physical processes have been analyzed through the lenses provided by different interpretations of m-valued logics, as the various papers published in journals devoted to m-valued logics indicate. Current approaches to quantum computing appear primarily to be attempting to use m-logically-valued properties of material quantum systems to speed up parallel binary processors. The internal properties of the involved material systems, in due course, will likely impose themselves in spite of predilections of developers such that m-logically-valued processors will inevitably emerge. M-valued logics could be applied to interpretation of quantum theory itself, and one can expect that this eventually will transpire, possibly in context of further developments of superstring theory.

(8) HOW CAN WE ESTABLISH THE TRANSITION FROM BINARY DISTINCTIONS TO M-VALUED NON-DISTINCTION-DISTINCTIONS? I think I have provided, in the above-given discussions, some impression of the approach to this I would advocate.

(9) HOW COULD M-VALUED LIFE BE MADE SUFFICIENTLY APPEALING TO FOLKS WHO PRESENTLY LIVE UNDER QUITE DIFFERENT MODELS? I feel that this could most effectively be accomplished via the approaches to computer games, flotation/isolation tanks, simulation, VR, and the electronic commons suggested above. Other means would involve applications of these media in the fine and performing arts, smart clothes, industrial design, extensions of hypertext literature, smart fabric design, and the like. Two quotes from James Hillman's A Terrible Love of War (Penguin, 2004) are appropriate here: “The idea that aesthetic culture can put some curbs of explosive violence…” (p. 170); and “Not art objects at all; but rather the concentration upon their making. Natura naturans, as philosophers call nature's process of creating, rather than natura naturata, the made, finished product.” (p. 212)

At least one expert agrees with one of my observations: the Dean of the Yale School of Management, Jeffrey Garten (“The Growing Calls for Change”, Newsweek, January 31, 2005): “There is only one way that a new Bretton Woods could take place, and that is if we were to experience a catastrophic event comparable to World War II.” Yet, being a management specialist, he misses the more fundamental point in his immediately following statement: “After all, our basic economic system has remained essentially intact despite the oil crises of the 1970s and '80s, the end of the cold war and the Latin American and Asian financial crises of the 1990s”. Is this true? Absolutely not. The management system has remained essentially intact, but the economic system has not. The IMF and the World Bank are not part of the economic system; they are part of the regulatory system, the system used to impose management in lieu of a functional economic system. Loss, during the early-1970s, of the gold-exchange mechanism of the Bretton Woods monetary system was a fundamental change in the not-so-functional economic system, while the management system has remained essentially intact. Moreover, even after an event so catastrophic as World War II, an actually functional economic system could not be consensuated-from-above: the Bancor/Unitas and universal clearing union advocated by Keynes and White were dropped during negotiations under pressure from the political managers and the less than actually functional gold-exchange mechanism was agreed upon in their stead by the economists. We can be no more hopeful for aftermath of the coming catastrophe. If we ever are to create an actually functional economic system it will have to be brought up from below over time, not consensuated-from-above in some grand conclave. Best start now (or better yet, 30 years ago when the notion of m-logically-valued monetary units was first formulated), not when collective psychological investiture in the catastrophe reaches apotheosis. Personally, I have little interest in the economies of revenants and economic system as apotropaic ritual. The apotropaic rituals have to be played out in all their aesthetic finery long before the economic system can functionally emerge from them.

Sorry, but I do not speak to role attributions, only the missing person; and nevermore do I pass again over fallow ground, except as does the falcon.

It is not incidental, I think, that the “key” to functions of VCI (Vietcong political infrastructure) boundary changes was discovered to be LBNs (letterbox number codes). Using the I-Ching as a “model” (in the precise mathematical sense of that word) view the hexagrams (made of tri-graphic cipher codons), not as encoded messages, but as rotational (Tai Chi symbol) binary-logic keys for deciphering m-logically-valued tableau arrays (disposition of Upper Heaven, Lower Heaven, and so on). Consider genes, moreover, as helix-coiling binary-logic keys (made up of tri-graphic cipher codons) to proteomic “locks” on segmentary boundaries with both whole-integer and fractal dimensions mapped on an m-logically-valued reference space addressed with numbered Gödel numbers. Embryogenesis would be dependent upon activating the “addressed” functionals carried on fractal dimensions of whole-integer boundaries, this activation being accomplished by the kinetics of protein folding processes (the fold-topologies themselves being architectonic Musculpted constellations of the underlying kinetics -- bends occurring as limiting velocities, accelerations, and time rates of change of acceleration are approached by free electron parcels moving within the frictionless vacuum “medium” Maxwell imagined his demon acting upon: Maxwell's demon, known to us as operator-time, had always been a part of the debate, as is explicitly discussed by Evelyn Fox Keller in her Refiguring Life [Columbia U. Press, 1995]). We were all over this idea, in various fuzzy incipient incarnations, at SRA, MACV-HQ in 1968 as we read Watson's account of Rosalind Franklin's, his, and Crick's discovery of the crystallographic structure of DNA in comparison with VCI dynamics: this fact is clearly articulated by multiple references in MOON. The involved intellectual orientation vectored my imagination regarding DNA encipherment issues and played a major role in the contribution I later made to formulation of the ideas written into our superconductant DNA paper. Thank Tran Bac Dang for that. There is no possibility whatsoever that the greatest coding system of all time is based on a single-level cipher. The higher orders of the cipher system are embodied in the temporal curl effecting proteomic folding kinetics accomplished by m-logically-valued operators in several orders of imaginary time.

During the mid-to-late 1970s, Suzi Daniels was doing radiation biology research at the Smithsonian Institution on phytochrome, a plant growth-factor hormone responsive to photo-periodicities. She was completing her Ph.D. studies at University of Maryland. Having once been an accomplished artist educated at Wellesley, she had decided to go back to school and become a scientist. A close friend of hers, Michele Fernan, was closely following development of our DNA ideas at Cornell and kept Suzi informed. Michele verbally translated-read-out-loud for me a scholarly book in French on the I-Ching, which was very helpful coming at just the right time. Eventually, Suzi and I met over drinks in Georgetown. She became quite excited during the discussion -- that ranged over radiation biology, music, sculpture, and color theory -- and began projecting our ideas about limiting velocities, accelerations, and time rates of change of acceleration of helix-coil transition in DNA kinetics and looping into realms of proteomic folding kinetics. In writing the superconductant DNA paper, we were aware that Goldschmidt thought reaction velocities are important determinants of development; we just thought velocities were inadequate. Later, Suzi sent me a veritable library of photocopied articles she had studied on protein folding processes. As a result of these Kunstwissenshaft interactions with Suzi, I began thinking of folded protein architectures (Musculpted forms) as mapped on painter Rice Pereira's “layered transparent” -- which was written into a book by Pereira brought to my attention by Suzi called The Nature of Space: The Transcendental Formal Logic of the Infinite, published in 1956 by the Corcoran Gallery, with which Suzi had once been involved -- by numbered Gödel numbers. Michele and I kicked this around incessantly relative to Jungian intimations concerning nature of the archetypes-in-themselves. I imagined formalization of the “layered transparent” as a multi-sheeted n-dimensional Hilbert space under m-valued logics, and called it the m-logically-valued reference space (MVRS), a hostspace upon which all single-valued biological functions are Gödel mapped. Hypercomplex and complex operator-time deciphers (in the 3-fold imaginary time coupled to tri-graphic cipher codons) m-logically-valued Gödel numbered logical propositions on the MVRS which are decomposed by Fourier transform into electromagnetic periodicities superconductant properties of DNA convert into acoustically-modified gravity-wave modes emitted through the structured intracellular water within which proteomic folding kinetics transpire. The involved gravito-acoustic “formants” -- à la Stockhausen -- potentize via succussion (possibly involving the “unidirectional stirring” components hypothesized by Gilbert Ling) polypeptide chains into activated proteomic architectures which unlock functionals on fractal dimensions of whole-integer segmentary boundaries informing embryogenesis. After completing her dissertation, Suzi took a job doing DNA-related research at University of Michigan. The tasks assigned bored her to tears. She unsuccessfully tried to interest the director of the lab in the superconductant DNA model. After a couple of years, she stopped being a scientist and returned to the arts. So it goes with synchronicities. Meetings will be made; why hang around after the creative work is done?

Thanks for the referral to the short piece in Wired about the Accentus software that encodes market fluctuations with music so as to help traders overcome information overload (“The Sound of Money”, January 2005). All along I have maintained that full-fledged implementation of m-logically-valued currency units would necessarily involve employment of Musculpt as the representation medium. The Accentus software is a small step in that direction. If, as Frederich Schlegel -- not Goethe -- said, “Architecture is frozen music”, then money is devalued music (devalued from m-logically-valued to 2-logically-valued).

Certainly if Gödel-Einstein were confronted with a wall of silence over the notion of no-time, then unknown Paine-Pensinger have no call for concern over pounding heads against a brick wall for decades. I have yet to actually read Palle Yourgrau's book A World Without Time (Basic Books, 2005), only skimmed your underlined passages, but I must say I am profoundly underwhelmed at the profundity of Gödel's ideas in this area -- about which I have been uninformed. I will have to get Yourgrau's earlier technical book and find the specific Gödel paper in question. This will take awhile, given how removed I am. Hawking's reaction is true to form; the man has been an utter ideologue nemesis. He may be yet one more one-man world war generator. Biographical books like this on The Greats, though one simply must read them, make me utterly nauseous. I don't like reading the exact words Einstein said, Gödel said. This just slaps me in the face as to how the experience of reality of The Greats doesn't hold a candle to the experience of reality of, for instance, a Sir John Woodroffe. The histrionics of these people over the merest of matters! Decades of interpersonal venom, clashes between nation-states, mega-death, holocausts: all this over conceptual and experiential transitions which come early in what Aurobindo called “Integral Yoga”. It's disgusting. Gödel's position on no-time is thousands of years old, and I can assure you, even having not yet read its details, that the technical basis of Gödel's argument is incidental, even moot (though certainly unassailable in binary logic terms). How do I know? Because Gödel never got out of the 2-valued order of m-valued logics; and after more that two decades of fixation, Einstein's second wife never presented him with the notion of “limiting acceleration”. La-Dee-Da! But I will read into this with interest. One just has to. It's like having your ancestors' dirty underwear thrust in your face. How can you ignore it?

“To be” and “Not to be” was Bertrand Russell's question (posed with Whitehead in their Principia Mathematica); “To be” or “Not to be” was Russell's answer. And this wrong answer -- which Hamlet had enough sense to proclaim a question -- reverberates down to us today in Stuart Kauffman's neo(social)Darwinian 2^nk Fitness Landscape for DNA-genomic behaviors like insurgent suicidal genes and counterinsurgent killer genes (which, in turn, has considerable relevance to the question of generalized knee-jerk disbelief in an existence proof for m-logically-valued monetary units, which, in turn yet again, I Platonically, and for emphasis Platonistically, maintain have always existed as determining factors in the capitalist marketplace, factors never overtly denoted relative to von Hayek's relative-state-like “time-shapes of total capital stock”: see “M-Valuation in a Generalized Currency Basket”). Let me give some idea as to why I refuse to attempt to carry this into complexification via written notational devices (as distinct from Musculpt) of complexity theory or any others, and why I will always so refuse. Ridicule as measure of man is far superior to the formal mathematical proof! But let us back up into time-in-itself, not mere historical time-itself, or even more-mere simple “history”, as seems always to be necessary when ridicule is in order. By now, everybody knows that time-itself, which does have something to do with the issue(s) of “To be” and/or “Not to be”, was a big question-issue controversy-problem at the end of the 19th century. Einstein solved it and others experimentally proved it -- or so we have been led to believe. Yet, it's pretty deep, this problem, as we could realize were we to contemplate the notion assumed until the 1870s that the natural numbers potentially go on forever. Forever! That pre-Cantor idea of what infinity is. Time-itself -- somehow somewhere in “forever” just as in “now” and/or “then” -- was incorporated into the very notion of natural number. The natural number sequence (not just irreversible increase in entropy) is an essential aspect of the definition of the time of the physicists (part of the “mathematically designated space and time” emergent from the Renaissance), and time-itself is an essential aspect of the definition of the very notion of natural number. But circular arguments are supposed to be tautological, and therefore no keystone upon which to erect an edifice (except, perhaps, a Tower of Babel). I remember back during the '70s at Cornell in conversation with a tenured professor of mathematics idly commenting without premeditation that the sole purpose in the writing of Russell's Principia was to debunk Cantor's definition of a denumerable transfinite set. The scorn for amateurs in his dismissive reply was so sulfuric we both had to ask for another highball. If he hadn't heard of this, could I possibly be right? (Having written this into our novel The Moon of Hoa Binh over a decade ago, reading Palle Yourgrau's book A World Without Time [Basic Books, 2005], I now learn that [p. 47] “Historical research has revealed that he [Russell] invented his paradox in the course of trying to refute Cantor's proof…”). I hadn't even really thought about it; my assessment of Russell was like a tacit assumption, something so obvious it just slipped in without due critical evaluation and out the mouth of its own accord. How could anyone with the background and employer of a Russell or a Whitehead possibly concur with something so overtly animistic, so thoroughly Einfuhlung, Heimat, Erdgeist, as Cantor's definition, a definition demonstrated with the famous “diagonal proof”: Any set with the same cardinality as one of its proper subsets? Part equal to the whole -- in one very big sense, at least! Pure animistic identity transparency. No possibility of an absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct property defining a set. Identity without identity! Magic without magic. Pure greasy slicked-back Indic Eternal Now (the native thumbing his nose at the sahib). Pure relative-state. Pure entanglement. Pure electron (member of the set of all sets of electrons which are members of themselves). Right? Of course, right, for electrons are so small, no matter how big the classes of themselves chosen, those classes are still small sets. Right? But how could that be, for the set of all such small sets cannot be a small set; it must be a large set and therefore cannot be a member of the set of all sets of electrons which are small-set members of themselves. Sets of electrons must, therefore, not be able to be members of themselves! Were the superposed large set a member of the small sets composing it, that set of all sets of electrons which are not able to be members of themselves would have simultaneously “To be” and “Not to be” a member of itself. It would have to be Schrödinger's cat: A (the whole) would have to be absolutely not-A (the part); not-A (the part) would have to be absolutely A (the whole): it would have to be a set with the same cardinality as one of its proper subsets. But this cannot be, for “no A is not-A” and “the case must be either A or not-A”. As regards the question “To be” and/or “Not to be” the answer to the case must be or and not and. How dare Cantor inflict upon us more of that greasy slicked-back native rigmarole! If the natural numbers numbering actual instants of the actual linear-time-line arrow are not a potential infinity but an actual infinity, that means the whole of linear-time has the same cardinality as any part of linear-time and one lives forever in each passing instant and one is forever dead in the spaces between. Going on forever, the “forever” of the natural numbers: but the forever “going on” is a “going on” of each and every instant, each and every Bardo-between. Not only or but also and. A “third voice” would have entered the cosmic symphony! And if that timeline is continuous, has no holes, oh my God, the implications: Cantor's “continuum hypothesis”. The schizoid inner voices would literally be innumerable. The temporal implications of that! So far beyond an Eternal Now that, my God! Don't even think about it. This is, of course, exactly what Derek in The Moon of Hoa Binh thought about, the issues of which were clues to the so-called suicide/murder, and which were in part resolved in the last scene during confrontation with the “Third Voice”. As soon as actual infinity is allowed anytime, and probably even anywhere, THERE IS NO SANITY; THERE IS NO BEING ME. EVERYTHING IS NOTHING; NOTHING, EVERYTHING. SUICIDE IS MURDER; MURDER, SUICIDE. My God! My God! Who can possibly breathe? Walk and breathe! Just walk and breathe. Russell had to do away with this “state” of affairs. And in so doing, he greatly facilitated onset of WWI (and became a peace activist by way of subliminally-mediated “compensatory abreaction”). And T. S. Elliot, while at Harvard when he had a chance to interdict what Russell was doing, blew it off with his “half object”. But Russell did more than that; he wrote On Logical Atomism because he knew exactly what he was doing: If A is absolutely not-A, if, that is, this were allowed permissible by the rules of logic, that would immediately mean that there must be orders of rules of logic (what in MOON is called “ruru-no-kata”) and associated orders of logical-value. M-valued logics are implicit in the native's Brahman, the actual infinite which is unmodified in being modified. On Logical Atomism attempted to interdict this possibility by arguing that the greater the number of logical values to a given proposition, the more meaningless that proposition. Not only did Russell anticipate quantum mechanics as implicit in Cantorian set theory, and argue against it, he anticipated the m-logically-valued interpretation of Schrödinger's wave equation and argued against it. That's why I say Born's probability-amplitude interpretation was the “last straw” (not the only straw) leading to onset of WWII. I did not know that Russell sent a letter to Frege in 1902 (quoted by Yourgrau, p. 47) which was likely the “last straw” leading to WWI. “So far beyond the Eternal Now” is, of course, three-fold complex-imaginary operator-time quantized as Penrose's twistor: the pre-Vedic, animistic-tribal, Indic Kala, which native positivistic-empirical introspectives long, long ago figured out in great detail. Hawking's passive “imaginary time”, clearly, was an attempt to debunk active “operator-time”. If, as I have argued for over thirty years, what Yourgrau calls (p. 51) “…widespread fear in mathematical circles” (recognition of which is not widely admitted in academic circles, even unto this day) has been deeply involved in origins of two world wars, what is to suggest it will not be involved in origins of a third? Nothing, absolutely nothing. In fact, we are well into the third induction funnel at this very instant. But who understands nature of the induction? Nobody, absolutely nobody. Therefore, there does not exist the slightest intimation of what the circumstance requires.

We are starting to get off subject here, but I guess that is okay. Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem was for laggards, slowworms, tortoises; it came ten years after rigorous codification of m-valued logics -- which codification not only contained the incompleteness theorem within itself, but that theorem exponentiated to order-n, even to order aleph-null, aleph-1, aleph…n. The culprit was not a fixation on form, but an insistence on false form, form that denied actual infinity and was restricted to the 2-valued order of m-valued logics (which false form Russell's On Logical Atomism had insisted upon very early in the century -- for all sorts of extra-mathematical false-value laden reasons). There was no choice made in Hilbertian formalism -- and its bleed-overs into other areas of culture -- for syntax over semantics, for consistency over truth, because truth is not equivalent to meaning anymore than the structures of 2-valued-logic consistency are equal to syntax of any language, such as Aymara, based on orders of logical-value other than two. The choice was made for falsity, for lying in form. One of the primary issues raised by the very existence of m-valued logics is the necessity to abandon truth-value as the fundamental notion in logic: truth-value is derivative, not fundamental. Identity transparency is fundamental in logic. Alexander Karpenko's work on functionals across primes and m-valued logics has recently demonstrated this necessity, a necessity clearly implied in the work completed in 1921, a decade before Gödel's proof. What Gödel did with his incompleteness theorem was something like math for the masses, a popular stunt performed long after the main event, a Dadaistic happening undertaken for effect -- beating The Man with his own cane and getting him to pay you and praise you for doing so: that old-time religion, SM -- propaganda by fire. Gödel's sole real contribution was creation of the idea of a Gödel number (which is, nonetheless, a very significant contribution, one sure to play a major role in things to come across a broad swath of culture).

You've got me started on this, so we will continue. Yourgrau is offering us, not a transparent history, but a history through the smoky lens of Fertile-Crescent-religion fundamentalism. He says (p. 57), “…whereas truth, as such, is absolute.” His only expansion upon this fundamentalist assertion comes in the following sentence: “What Gödel proved is that mathematical truth is not reducible to (formal or mechanical) proof.” A few sentences later, he says, “…what gives us access to meaning, namely, intuition…” Further explication of this last assertion is not forthcoming. This takes me back to September of 1963 and the first day of classes at AU's School of International Service. The eighty entering freshman all had to take Abdul Aziz Said's “Introduction to International Relations” in one of the two time slots it was offered. The first class period opened with announcement of an essay test that would count for 10-percent of the semester's grade. One could spend the whole period writing out an answer to the single question: What is truth? Most pondered and wrote throughout the allotted time, while one fellow immediately handed in his blue book and left. During the next class period this fellow was praised for writing into his blue book the single sentence: Truth is relative. I had a lot of trouble with this idea, just as I saw no reason to accept the converse, i.e., the notion that truth, as such, is absolute. Having read Kierkegaard on Either/Or and having studied as a child the asymmetries of Japanese flower arranging, juxtaposition of the two involved mindsets was what struck me most. I wrote long and hard about this in my blue book and got a mediocre grade; but I suspect I would not have gotten a better grade had I been pithy enough to simply have written: Truth is a subjectivity-rod. This is far and away from the notion that truth is relative, for it asserts that in and of itself, relative or absolute, truth has no ontological status, no place in the being-ness of being; it is a shadow on the wall of Plato's cave. The notion of truth is a figment, an existential security blanket: nothing but Peanuts. Just as the artist circumscribes a domain of total control, so as to simulate mastery over unruly natural nature (and society) as psychologically projected upon from his uncontrolled roof-brain-chatter mind-running-hither-and-yon, so does the mathematician with his axiomatic method (a lasso by which he attempts to rope in the terrifying infinitude of his own faculties). Truth is Greek to me! Truth, historically, has been a political conspiracy, a prerequisite to creation and maintenance of role stratification. Those who cannot control their own minds control others as compensatory stand-in. Clinging to this security blanket is the primary obsession preventing direct access to higher states of consciousness, one way of deferring to a priesthood, be it ecclesiastic or secular.

Yourgrau's latter two statements take me back to 1965 and conversation at Ernest Nagel's dining room table located near the National Zoo. What justifies the notion that truth is somehow equivalent to meaning? Even if proof could be made perfect, how would we know that a perfect proof revealed a truth? What could perfect formal proof by the axiomatic method reveal beyond consistency in employment of a set of rules? It does not prove the truth of any of the axioms, and therefore cannot prove truth of any logically consistent deductions there from. The axioms are said to be “self-evident truths”. That no A (say 2) is not-A (say 4) may be self-evident to you, but it is not self-evident to me (this is an illustration of the import of one of Peano's axioms). It is clearly the case under ₁T₂ logic, but it is less and less the case as the logic employed transits to the _mT_m order of m-valued logics. Fully self-identical numbers appertain only to the ₁T₂ order of “logical-value” (which is not equivalent to “truth-value”). Only under the ₁T₂ order can any somewhat be deemed absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct. The very notion of what identity-as-such can be changes with order of logical-value employed. Non-self-identical numbers are absolutely essential to any authentic animist (who introjects massively-entangled, relative-stated, identity-transparent natural nature, rather than projects upon it); such numbers are practical daily necessities. Moreover, they are of the essence of the actual infinite as Cantor's “diagonal proof” supposedly “proved”: any set with the same cardinality as one of its proper subsets: identity transparency. Dispense with the “axioms” of logical atomism and atomistic matter and “demerge” finite numbers from Cantor's continuum, and then see what kind of finite numbers you get, and “where” they are (i.e., on what sheets of the multi-sheet model of the universe of discourse). Cantorian mathematics does not assume that the transfinite is constructed from the finite: to the contrary! The notion that the transfinite must be constructible from atomistic components is deduced from “self-evident” axiomatic assumption of the objectivity of a passing linear-time sequence numerable with absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct natural numbers. Cantorian set theory (finite sets decomposed from transfinite sets) dispenses with the self-evident-ness of this “axiom”. Simply to conclude that absence of a passing linear-time is equivalent to presence of no-time-whatsoever is, not only naive, but highly unempirical, an attitude never embraced, for instance, by Indic “thinkers”. As the Cabalist says: All numbers are infinite (under some order of logical-value). Gödel's “proof” of incompleteness, and his “proof” of the unprovability of consistency, were ten years into the literature on m-valued logics when he published them relative to ₁T₂-logic systematics alone. And if Gödel is “right”, whatever that might “mean” (as the meaning of meaning was something Wittgenstein, among others, devoted a great deal of attention to, and never came up with a believable answer), what is there to justify belief in his conclusions?

Wittgenstein's “philosophical disease” is contracted within the “territory” wherein the disease is endemic. The only way to recover from the disease is to leave that territory. In becoming a gardener, Wittgenstein tried to regain excellent health. He exercised good sense and very considerable moral courage, but, apparently, was unable to find a way to make the physical acts of gardening into a form of meditation capable of realizing generative empathic interlock with the natural surround he attempted to return to. Was form in Hilbert's program to formalize mathematics -- so as to retrieve Cantor from his naiveté -- being restricted as it was to the 2-logically-valued variety, the form of natural nature Wittgenstein may have been seeking in gardening, or some other kind of form? When, in 1972, George Harris, my old anthropology professor, happened upon me root pruning a Katsura tree in Beeches Nursery at the intersection of Routes 123 and 193 in shadow of the CIA compound, and asked, “How did you end up here?”, I could not very well answer that I had taken up Wittgenstein's implicit challenge (though I had clearly announced as much to philosopher Jack Waldron the previous year). Meaning is the relative-state of the “natural name” (the frequency on the frequency domain of the m-logically-valued reference space). Meaning (which has nothing to do with the notion of “truth”) is in form, in natural form, not in the form of syntax of any language by human creation. Meaning is inherent, not attributed; if attributed, it is less than meaning. Musculpt is the form language of natural names. By generative empathic interlock with the natural surround, one can become privy to this language; it will spontaneously appear in immediate awareness. When this form language is not part of conscious awareness, its subliminal promptings are designated with the black box term “intuition”. Bees EcherFormDance this language; plants sing it, as do whales; dolphins skitter-click it in their sonic-visionings. Proteins fold according to its forms, as those forms are coherently radiated by superconductant DNA in response to environmental relative-state identity transparency (proteins being part of the environment DNA responds to). Psychological induction of the pathological social surround, however, pulls us back from participation in this animistic mystique. Presently, strength of this inductive process is once again reaching lethal levels.

For thirty years I've been describing -- to whomever willing to listen long enough to decide to ignore what I have to say -- what needs to be done: number n-dimensional Regge lattices of Einstein field-equation curvature configurations with m-logically-valued numbered Gödel numbers: only in this way can General Relativity be viewed in Hilbert space under m-valued logics, the prerequisite for any actual quantum-gravity. Decompose these numbered numbers with 3-fold complex-imaginary operator-time quantized as Penrose twistors. I say it exactly this way on purpose! This is, of course, only where to start, not the basis of any “final theory”. Numbered Gödel numbers numbering “natural names”, numbering, that is, the forms of nature's form in process -- not Gödel numbers of syntactical structures falsified under psychopathic, sociophobic, neuropathologic political conspiracy servicing the needs of role stratification by recursive algorithm. With unsavory ulterior motives, Gödel chose the domain of natural number arithmetic as The Lord's Playing “Field” (pun intended). But, Horatio, there are more playing fields in the Lord's purview than allowed by your philosophy! Forget the numbering schemata Gödel created for his 2-logically-valued numbers (the ₁T₂-logically-valued order being a trivial order of logical-value relative to over-entangled polymorphous “perverse” natural nature, cosmos-in-itself). Consider how many systems of numbering schemata there are for Gödel-TYPE numbers! And how many purposes one might have for employing such systems of numbering schemata. I do not purpose this be done in written notation, but in sounded-forms: Musculpt as mathematical notation. The principle behind such numbering is what is important, not what Gödel actually did with the particular kind of Gödel numbers he created for the specific purposes he created them (each of which, beyond the basic principle involved, having been sophomoric and misguided); just as the principle behind the real-number Cartesian grid system is important, not the horrible things done with it over subsequent centuries.

Yourgrau has learned some interesting things I did not know: for instance -- as described on page 74 of A World Without Time -- that Emil Post in 1941 submitted a paper which was critical of the Gödel program to a journal, a paper rejected by that journal. This is very significant for assessment of the psychological undertow determining evolution of theory during first half of that despicable century. It was clear to me at first reading that Post's famous 1921 paper rigorously codifying m-valued logics was accepted for publication only because at the end it contained a disclaimer. From the beginning of his career and throughout, it appears, Post -- like the Victor P. Starr of “The Hydrodynamical Analogy to E = mc²”, another world shaker of a paper -- was pulling his punches in full awareness of the psychological undertow and its potential lethality. Turing had to be killed, you know. Suicide or murder: it could not have mattered, for clearly he had to have been killed. As soon as actual infinity is allowed anytime, and probably even anywhere, THERE IS NO SANITY; THERE IS NO BEING ME. EVERYTHING IS NOTHING; NOTHING, EVERYTHING. SUICIDE IS MURDER; MURDER, SUICIDE. My God! My God! Who can possibly breathe? Actual infinity and RESULTANT m-valued logics displace truth-value, invoke animistic identity transparency in its stead, and mandate by virtue of that transparency the “polymorphous perverse” sexuality explicated by the OSS: R & A analyst Norman O. Brown and his Love's Body. Government House mentally raped Turing in forcing an interpretation of the transfinite upon him he would otherwise, being identity transparent, never have chosen to elaborate nearly so extensively, so as to defeat the Nazi codes on a timely basis, and was prepared to shoot him up to prevent his returning to his mental status quo ante -- which, clearly, he would have attempted to do. Turing, my man, surely you will come back an angel. Eating a poison apple: what a wonderful thumb up their very bloody nose! The many millions who will die as a result of this have yet to die. Delocalizing the very idea of what holocaust can be by means of an “extrojecting” compensatory abreaction for having blocked applications of quantum principles of self-organization to sociology, political science, and economics. The collective psyche does have its equilibrations.

Yourgrau sees a little of this, without registering or acknowledging much of the implications. Page 68, for instance: “There simply was no such thing as a magic shield that would resolve all the mathematician's fears of an assault from some unsuspected inconsistency.” There being no magic shield, a concrete one had to be constructed, deployed, and wielded (collective application of psychological displacement by employment of projective identification in transference). Yourgrau, page 59, gives the standard interpretation: “Not only the results but the very methods employed in Gödel's theorem were so unexpected that it was years before mathematicians and logicians began to grasp their full significance.” “Began to grasp”-- Bull! “Refuse” is the word… even unto this day. “Refuse” from well before Gödel was born. General implications Gödel delineated in specific were seen well enough by the 1850s, even by non-mathematicians, that the hysteria prevailing between A and not-A (Tristan and Esolde, that is) could be heard ululating off Wagner's famous four-note, half-diminished 7th chord: Tristanakkord! Music Drama, being Musculpt personified, was an early example of collective application of psychological displacement by employment of projective identification in transference, the man-woman level of transference being the focus of Tristan and Esolde. Gödel, too, was a Refusenik. As Yourgrau says (p. 61): “Gödel had skirted around the deadly liar's paradox, substituting for it an unproblematic unprovability paradox (which was not really a paradox at all); established the possibility and harmlessness of self-reference…” Noting that self-referential propositions, the liar paradox being a pejorative example thereof, are the basis of the m-valued logics rigorously codified in 1921, ten years before Gödel's theorem appeared, these accomplishments by Gödel amounted not to a thrust of the pugil stick, but a defensive parry. Not even a herald, a pursuivant was he. During the 1820s, Abel's transcendental functions set the collective ear to the wind sensing threat, threat reinforced by translation of The Great Books of the East into European languages. Hysteria rose to crescendo by the 1850s, and, with synchronistic Zeitgeist-prompting from Cantor's definition of a denumerable transfinite set, made its first fulmination in the Franco-Prussian war. Nothing of significance transpired in Europe for well over a century not directly related to this.

Anymore, I do not entertain a significant possibility of enlightened action relative to the prevailing global conundrum -- not to speak of ADEQUATE enlightened action. That simply will not happen. There are too many intractable convolutions: cognitive, behavioral, institutional, as well as physical. B. F. Skinner did not overestimate the degree to which operant conditioning governs human functioning -- even if his wholesale dismissal of other POTENTIAL functional modalities was unfounded. As humans currently function… I once was hired to take over management of a complex irrigation system which had lain in disrepair for some period. In going about repairs, I tested and mapped the field. While I was in midst of doing this, the previous manager -- camou dude, slinging low his SWAT cargo pants, fat style -- came into the nursery, pointed to a valve and said: “That valve controls the section over there.” I replied that I had just tested those sectors and found that the valve in question controlled, not the section over there, but the one in which he was standing. He restated his assertion that the valve controlled the section over there. I walked to the valve and turned it on. Sprinklers all around us sputtered into action and we both quickly became drenched. He stood there unperturbed, water dripping from his nose, more forcefully stated that the valve I had turned on controlled the section over there, turned and strode away. Over the following several weeks, he reappeared on occasion to reiterate the proposition that the valve in question controlled the section over there. This experience had a profound effect upon me, not because I was ego invested in the irrigation field, but due to the fact I had recently returned from the Viet Nam war where I had witnessed many examples of analogous behaviors which I had attributed to consequences of life-threatening stress -- acute, episodic, chronic. The enemy strength-estimates controversy and the generalized consensus on strategic impact of the Tet offensive being particularly virulent pandemic cases in point. Inability to see relative-state, the result of linkage blindness: something any good intelligence analyst has long since become intimately familiar with. But here I was in the ZI seeing something similar in absence of war, without that level of stress! My whole assessment of human competency had to be reevaluated. A year or so later, I was hired as a temp to help apply Skinnerian methods -- White Oak stuff -- to reprogramming kids finally and forever thrown out of the Washington, D.C., school system as unrecoverable behavior problems. There were the most-street-smart who figured out the program instantly, subverted it, and went on their merry ways altogether unaffected; the clingers who soaked up the unaccustomed attention like sponges attached to a haul absorb saltwater, but remained unchanged because of the severity of their inner-city PTSD; the neurologically-impaired MSG children who unobstructedly continued to cultivate their cognitive deficits, attention disorders, episodic fitful outbursts, hyperactivity; and the N-Ns, the nearly-normals, who responded almost miraculously to money as positive reinforcement, elevating their reading levels from second to seventh grade virtually overnight (while at the same time having their assimilated false-value system placed in an unassailable cognitive cold-storage locker). Thank the gods I was only a temp! Profiling generic N-Ns and their breaks-interludes, these are the sorts of behaviors I believe the human species is most likely to continue to bring to bear upon attempts to meet the current planetary crisis. Unperturbed, water dripping from their noses, physicists will continue to reiterate the proposition that Schrödinger's wave function is to be understood in terms of probability amplitudes, even as “quantum” computing is brought up over phase-qubits as means to achieve faster 2-logically-valued Boolean-Turing processors. This intoned reiteration by non-Abelian physicists will preclude short-term implementation of m-logically-valued monetary units, the only “device” capable of facilitating the sufficiently large-scale thematic reorganization of human behavioral psychology (think of the N-Ns) prerequisite to ADEQUATE enlightened action vis-a-vis cusp crisis, planet Earth, soon to be inhabited by ten-billion homo sapiens. By the by, widespread employment of faster Boolean-Turing processors via so-called quantum computing by employment of phase-digits will hyper the hyper such that cell-aggregate bioprocessors reveal artificial-neural-networked embryo-morpho-genetic processes explainable only by wave functions understood in terms of m-valued logics (not probability amplitudes). By this memetime, however…

Under the glutamatergic neuronal etching induced by prescriptive enculturation, unreal life always sets in again -- whatever reality interlude, epiphany, might momentarily have intervened. Given the fact that MD99, aka ketamine, is the endogenous antidote to endogenous glutamate, both involved in neurotransmission, don't you think it rather revealing that John C. Lilly's ketamine dosage titration investigations -- piggy-backing IM injections, et cetera, catalogued in his “Tank Logs” -- were so strongly stigmatized? Ask your dentist if he puts valium in the ketamine he gives you. Drug cocktails, anyone? MD99, a dissociative -- Heh-heh-heh! -- anesthetic, not only widely used by Special Forces medics at Dog Lab and in Viet Nam during the 1960s, but more widely used as a big-game tranquilizer, human and otherwise. I saw no evidence of dissociation displayed in Lilly's Tank Logs. How many of these medical critics -- forensic medicine, they call it -- actually know what “dissociative” actually means? Hah-hah-hah. “Yuppie LSD”: what a hoot! Just compare the blood-level curves. LSD in this respect is more like Rohipnol, the hypnotic date-rape drug. Of course, if your Micky Finn contains MD99 plus Rohipnol, you will be down and out quickly and long -- not immediately, which requires injection rather than the oral route of entry. Then there are the gaseous varieties, as patrons of the Russian performing arts found out the hard way. Rohipnol fuzzes your brain, can't walk so good (the antidote being fasting, Chinese detox herbs, high colonics). Who created Rohipnol, anyway? Advocates of the fuzzy-logic interpretation of Lukasiewicz logics? That infinite collection of nerds arrayed between zero and one on the real-number line? Must be. What do you think John Lilly was after in focusing so much attention upon ketamine, the antidote to glutamatergic etching of the brain? Glutamate effectuates socialization of cognition in service to prescriptive enculturation (inversion of E. Kris' artistic “regression in service to the ego”). Famous logicians of the logical positivism flavor -- W.V.O. whomever -- regarded those who claim to have experienced “bare perception” as being tantamount to “cosmic exiles”, a stigmata certainly sustained by John C. Lilly, M.D., a forensic medical examiner of the third kind. The capacity for bare perception is what glutamatergic neuronal etching wipes out. Since socialization of cognition proceeds by proprioceptive and perceptive automatization, one trigger to the antidote, i.e., deautomatization with endogenous ketamine flood, is sensory isolation -- investigation of which, at the NIMH, was how Lilly got onto this forensic-pharma stream. Paradoxically, one route of entry into bare perception is through perceptual isolation -- a fact long known in Tibet. Another is by Edmund Jacobson's deautomatizing “autosensory observation” -- also long known in Tibet. W.V.O. Quine promulgated his oxymoron about cosmic exiles for a reason: to keep Lukasiewicz logics at bay. Why? Into a forensic? Consider this (with a little help from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary): Forensic (n): [1] art or study of argumentative discourse, i.e., having to do with logic; [2] an argumentative exercise. Forensic (adj): suitable to judicature or public debate. Forensic medicine, forensic accountancy, et cetera. Fiducial (adj): [1] standard of reference, i.e., a fiducial mark, e.g., a stigmata; [2] founded on faith or trust; [3] having the nature of trust. Relationships of trust, keiretsu. Fiduciary (n): one who acts in a fiduciary capacity. Fiduciary (adj): relating to confidence or trust, e.g., fiduciary fiat money. Fiat money: paper currency not convertible to specie. Specie: coin, i.e., precious metal. Fiducial relationships arose from dissolution of identity transparency, yielding law: ontologic identity devolves to trust devolves to rules. Ritual gifting behaviors (omiage) arose from dissolution of identity transparency, yielding economics: ontologic identity devolves to gift devolves to trade. The m-valued collapses to the single-valued. The height of bogus conflation is that of law to economics, economics to law: the attempt to redintegrate dissolution products as a way to escape the original state of fusion. Raaa-DIN-tegrate. Redintegration (n): [1] restoration to a former state; [2] revival of the whole of a previous mental state, when a phase of it recurs, e.g., quantum relative-state treated as recursive and thus calculable according to Church's hypothesis; [3] arousal of any response by a part of the complex of stimuli that originally aroused that response, e.g., by generative semantics, experiencing the m-logically-valued as “fuzzy”. Redintegrative (adj): you know. Redintegrate (v): restored to a former sound (in both acoustic and medical meanings) state. Fudiciary fiat money. Fiat (n): [1] command or act that creates something; [2] authoritative decision of consciousness, e.g., a fiat of conscience; [3] arbitrary order, e.g., government by fiat. So, you think the human corpus is successfully to redintegrate in face of planetary crisis without utilization of m-logically-valued monetary units and the ketaminergic consequences such utilization would incur? But the DARPANET in internet will never be gotten out of the internet! Origins persist in their influences. If “The Architecture Machine” and the prevailing state of 3-D CAD (computer-aided design) conditioned stealth technology no less than did proximity to Disney Studios, then the military-Hollywood coalition for VR (virtual reality) studies will set the original terms for holographic Musculpt. If, moreover, just as Nam Jun Piak said, “Television has not yet left the breast”, so has the internet not yet left the breast, nor will Musculpt. Military spin-offs retain their signatures of origin. I ought to know, being a military brat. If Musculpt-as-maths-music-notation is to reach its synaesthetic-ketaminergic potential, it must be brought up relative to m-logically-valued monetary units, not VR-nano-robo space warfare or anti-war warfare. War/anti-war: why do you think gradients of the collective unconscious constellated the whole of modern technology in the belly of this beast? Put that together with Japanese anime… one couldn't help but be Ballarded, Ballardized! Collective projection? Unconscious conspiracy? Laws of Nature: elements of unconscious conspiracy awaiting discovery? True life as nothing but one big video arcade. RISC management with beasty battlefield MASS supercomputers (Mesoscale Atmospheric Simulation System). West-more-land. Ambassador Bunker. Putting a pretty face on the NRO with Chantilly lace. Just like Brier Rabbit's hole, the subterranean Presidential post-coital bunker in Greenbrier -- or is that Greenfrier? Scriabin's color organ was one of the more valiant early attempts to bring on trophotropic expurgation: electrochemical brain-vomiting as antidote to nascent human-species suicide.

Dirt Bike

Soil unfertile

Back overpass

	Why?

Exposed adequately


Have those been, who

Of their own concern

	Unworthy

Judged they have;

Contribution creative

To make, ever

Are they likely

	Eh, what?

Down the path

Keep on movin'

	Againe.

Ugh! Ugly. Why pass back over unfertile soil? Those who have been adequately exposed and have judged the material unworthy of their concern; what creative contribution are they likely ever to make? Just keep on movin'; down the path again.

What universal observer, Q? Pantographic attempt to render a cosmic panopticon? Look at relativity theory, quantum mechanics. There are no lamination-sheaves; no limited spacetime domains (LSTDs) -- except somewhat in Sakharov's “multi-sheet model of the universe”. There is pretension by nested grids and time steps, but no hierarchy of absolute limiting values differentiable to step functions and baud rates integrable by holographic relative-state to hyletic ALLBASE: no actual cosmic food web, food pyramid, food chain, food cycle. Mere quantum-relativistic foofaraw. Fribble! Nowadays, friability to Cantor dust only by fractal fractionation. Spacetime continuum with its single-valued universal physical constants. Only for normotic mind, inter alia, a continuum, a stream of consciousness; not by identity-transparent self-observation, inter alios, through Asiatic positivism. Strange path, arriving at intercalary pseudo-lamination in loop-quantum gravity via internal dimensions, and at universal physical constant “fields” in interbrained extension of superstring theory over p-branes -- when Schrödinger's wave-function under Lukasiewicz logics yields much the same, without a classical limit.

The information missing to imperfect markets which I speak of, there being cutting rooms of all kinds, is not the information absent about quality, how “good” a product is, which George Akerlof and Joseph Stiglitz received the Nobel Prize for analyzing: imperfect used car salesmen, essentially -- slubberdegullions, tatterdemalions. Though some missing qualitative information could be made explicit in markets by implementation of m-logically-valued Lukasiewiczian monetary units -- given proper choice of indicator-measures to tag to the value-stack over the given e-currency base, and some further insight into the nature of “qualia” and their relations to nonselfsame “quantia” -- the absent information I speak of is more econometrically fundamental and deeply involved with business cycles: that concerning the overall state of integration of the macroeconomy, its “quotient” of Everett relative-state; the complement and character of intersystemic flows, including reflexivity; the corpus and magnitude of impinging externalities, across the full spectrum from the psychological to the environmental. The preponderance of such information is not space-related, however much it might so appear; it is time-ordering in “nature” (both meanings of the word applicable) and available in extremely small differentials read in several orders of derivatives ultimately handled as complex-imaginary operator-time. Bill Clinton notoriously, and naively, bought into Non-Zero. This just reflected the limitations of his education and intellectual exposure. Non-zero options may be available, but they all violate various conservation laws as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and, so, are not accessible to any system predicated upon two-valued logic alone -- non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems not excepted. Recourse to far-from-equilibrium phase transitions (such as, for instance, reversal of a climate shift) may defer the Second Law, but how effectively this can be done depends largely upon the nature of the partitionings (determined by boundary values of limited spacetime domains, LSTDs) engaged. Transfer of anthropogenic entropy produced by economic enterprise is extremely difficult to defer across, for instance, the terrestrial-solar boundary partition -- as the prevailing climate-shift dynamic clearly indicates, thus rendering non-equilibrium thermodynamic considerations mute as regards effective deferral by two-logically-valued market allocators, white man's burden or no white man's burden.

Yes, I read it (The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done so Much Ill and so Little Good, William Easterly, Penguin, 2006), but effort was required, as the book is so embarrassing. My gosh! Recommending the Harry Potterization, the McDonald's-ization of poverty reduction. How mortifying. Having in the course of my lifetime directly experienced the Harry Potterization of American literature and the McDonald's-ization of virtually every aspect of American society, the resultant elevation in vacuity of life and mind, and how that vacuity feeds a collective need for violence of every sort, I personally am embarrassed to read of this thesis. Wish that on others? Indeed, wish its globalization? I am not against markets or the profit motive, haven't been since being a member of the business student exchange organization, AIESEC, while studying international relations and problems of development during the early-1960s. Senator Mundt -- arch-conservative and early collaborator with Nixon -- sat on the Advisory Board to the AIESEC-US National Committee. In early-1964, I had a knock-down, drag-out argument with him in his office about an AIESEC Civil Service exchange program which he, in principle, opposed. The program was knocked down and dragged out, to the great disappointment of the Chairman of AIESEC-US. The subtext of that argument revolved around my thesis that the market as a vehicle of self-organization, has, for both structural and functional reasons, a very low level of self-organizational competency -- a level so low by comparison to self-organizing processes in nature that there is absolutely no possibility that markets, as they currently exist, can mediate self-organization of the overcoming of the myriad externalities involved in perpetuation of, say, poverty. I had sufficient confidence in the thesis to state it forcefully to Mundt because, in brainstorming the Civil Service exchange program with Fred Hornbacker, Chairman of AIESEC-US and a student at the Wharton School of Finance who later went on to Booz Allen Hamilton, I had outlined the thesis and received strong encouragement to continue work on the involved ideas. At the time, Fred was one of the few “business engineers” (electrical engineering degree from University of Michigan) actually into self-organization -- rather than control circuits, management, leadership, inspiration, corporate culture… Yes, I know, the firm is in the market, not the market in the firm. Heard that. Yesiree! However, for having stated this thesis on self-organizational competency to Mundt, he regarded me, if not a communist to be brought before HUAC, his old bailiwick, then certainly as an advocate of economic planning, centralized or not. No matter what I said, he could not entertain the notion I was not advocating planning. Either you are for the market or you are against the market -- and, therefore, if against the market, necessarily pro-planning. Either/or. The market is the market and only the market; it is not decomposable to variable properties that could, for instance, affect its level of self-organizational competency. There are no such levels; there are no such properties. The market is what it is, whole and complete, and what it is is the best possible: love it or leave it -- and if you leave it, we are obliged to destroy you by one means or another. I was not overly surprised by this, having the previous semester been required to read George F. Kennan's “Mr. X article” on Soviet conduct and his Russia and the West. Being still only eighteen, and already into early stages of arriving at the notion of m-logically-valued monetary units AS A WAY TO IMPROVE SELF-ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETENCY OF THE MARKET, hardly a soft- or hard-utopian proposition, I concluded that Senator Mundt had some sort of brain disease which limited his ratiocination to ragga-ragga-hip-hop either/or sequences. Becoming aware, after the argument in the Senator's office, how prevalent, indeed endemic, this brain disease is, the decision to get out of town was not long in coming. Never looked back; never will look back -- and, clearly, little has changed. Apparently, Easterly doesn't know that “disjointed incrementalism” has been an explicit planning strategy of professional strategic planners (public and private sector) since at least the 1950s; whereas, the comprehensive plan was adapted from military-staffed opplans by business engineers from the time of the American Civil War: ah, the poverty of Popper. Nothing wrong with Sorosian “tactical improvisation”, but no campaign is won on the tactical level alone. Much to the contrary! Just as tactical success after tactical success is the royal road to strategic failure in GWOT -- But we won every battle! -- so, in the present global crisis, given the relative-state, the superintegration, of its aspects, will successfully solving this problem, that problem, the other problem be the royal road toward human-species extinction. Ah, yes, the democracy in American democracy… What you say? Moreover, rich societies are the only ones which can rely on reform cycles, piecewise progress, the pork-barrel politics and stakeholder jostling-quibbling of muddling through, not only because they are rich, but because their economies have been based on leveraged access to global as opposed to local resources, purchasing power imparities built into the militarily-imposed international monetary system, preferential visa status for their touring-investing populations, and on and on. Those level playing fields. Having pretty much put continental genocide and mass slavery behind themselves, or at least having stated the intent, muddling through seemed just the thing, a nice little political luxury to indulge, whilst… Surface institutional criticism as deflection, as core-institution protection and spoiling operation: the system (that caused all this) works! It just needs a little fine tuning… On the other hand, Aid as Imperialism, wasn't that the title of a book? Who believes there ever was, at the policy-formulation level, any real intent to actually “aid the rest”? The Marshall Plan was to help whom? Grants-in-aid tied to what? What rare…? Whose high loan-service costs? Recycling petrodollars and Third World debt through whose banks? World Bank officials TDY to Cambodia got paid what? Actresses into mock-snuff films giving artificial live-aid to which victims? Impaction as extraction? Thailand's high growth rates were based on… well, I never! The AIDS in aid. Market-mediated feedback and accountability, Easterly's theme: how pathetic a sophomoric conception of self-organization, following upon a hundred years of “new” physics. Yep, unfettered markets, they're gunna Gore greenhouse warming. Heh-heh-heh. Non-zero, now. Take note! Forty-plus years after the argument with Mundt, people still think the notion of m-logically-valued monetary units is an attempt to resurrect central planning, command economics; while others view it as anarcho-capitalism taken to the mth-degree. The human mind is amazingly impoverished: this is the white man's real burden.

No. I haven't read any of the recent histories of the U-2. I just remember from high school at Eielson, AFB, Alaska, the beauty of the craft coming in through the ice fog with its high-pitched whistle. The initial smaller version, not the ugly black one. I arrived at Eielson within days of the Powers shootdown. One of the popular pieces of music during the period was entitled “Wonderland by Night”. I took this to heart, donned a flight-line parka, and walked in the ice fog a lot, didn't hang out in tunnels like girls I knew at Ladd, witnessing many nighttime U-2 landings, and some take-offs which were mostly early in the morning. Occasionally played basketball at the base gym with the pilots, a couple of whom had earlier been Groom Lake test jockeys. But this was not new to me. In Japan from 1953-6, I had known young pilots -- at Ashiya, AFB, with one of them, built a huge balsa scale model from scratch of a B-36; flew it on a wire in circles from a field behind the base school -- later transferred to Moses Lake. Visited them upon return from Japan. In my sphere, this was a normal part of growing up. It was quite a shock to more onetime pilots than just my father when I did not go into the Air Force. But, then, my experience of Japan at the end of the Korean War was very different from theirs, as was my intuition as to origins of the Cold War.

So you think I learned nothing about radar, about counter measures, growing up around air bases in Japan, SAC and ADC bases, Wright-Pat, the pilots who flew converted bombers, Flying Fortresses like my father flew out of BW-1, Bluie West, Greenland, Superfortresses, their technicians -- frequency windows, pulse repetition RATES, scan RATES, scan types, pulse width… -- and that this had no influence, even subliminal, on evolution of my thought about the quantum-wave properties of superconductant free-electron gas core of DNA? If so, I think you have no conception of the quality, variety, and sophistication of hobby shops then available on a remote SAC base like Eielson, and the range of things that could be learned in them. I was a hands-on hobbyist as a boy, but entering teens I became more and more exclusively interested in the theoretical import of things. Didn't build a state-of-the-art sound system, for instance, like some of my friends at Eielson.

Pull up an audio CD in Windows Media Player, skin mode: the music is not actually correlated with the color-field alterations, dynamic-shape changes, geometrical-pattern flow, but, after a moment or two, the brain syncs them a wee bit. This is not a 2-D version of what a technological exteriorization of inner Musculpt would be, but suggestive thereof. First of all, it's in principle way, way too fast -- maybe for an ET Old One with a thousand incarnations of practice. Semantic import (meaning) is not in correlation between visual and auditory givens, as given to the 2-logically-valued awareness. Music can be notated; mathematics can be notated; meaning cannot be notated. Even if there should be no distinction between notation and heard-sound intervals (transformation of auditory space, not movement in auditory space), this does not mean meaning (the meaning of meanings) can be notated. It can only be signified; all the more the case across m-orders of logical-value in synaesthesia. Musculpt is no possible-world modal-logic concatenation of multimedia, even if VRed. But that doesn't mean inner Musculpt does not exist or cannot be technologically exteriorized. Biofeedback in the isolation-flotation tank would help make inner Musculpt available to conscious awareness, but it would itself be no part of inner Musculpt or its exteriorization. Same for a holographic biofeedback interface like SmartDanceWear or a SmartDress. Object and trope: is signification equivalent to reductionism of the plastic metaphor; the sounded plastic metaphor; the smelled, sounded, plastic, tactile, taste polymorphic metaphor? In inner Musculpt, meanings are not additive. The given is meaning saturation overload to any (m-1) + (m-2) + (m-n) +… logically-valued awareness, resolvable only in increments of absence. In the form is meaning unbearable, sustainable only by removal to lower-order meanings. M-logically-valued ALLBASE taken down to binary action-potential. It is a mistake to believe you can walk back up the devil's staircase and that, somehow, it becomes the stairway to heaven: no concatenation of meanings yields meaning. A humpty-dumpty of meanings can never be put back together again -- for, in the realm of meaning, there are no “agains”; meaning is not in “gains”. Affective-proprioceptive paresthesia rush-flood at reception of meanings is not affectless pure feeling at recognition of meaning as the form of the given. Meaning is not in the form, but in pure feeling of the form. Forms as feeling-space places of the form. A numbered Gödel number is the semantic gestalt of a feeling-space place, a cosmic LBN (letter box number).

That's right. As artists discovered long ago, the form of the piece, being feeling-toned, is nonviewable. Even shape of the piece cannot actually be seen, for object-shape is a phenomenological construct involving a transfinite collection of Husserlian “horizons” or Cubist facets unconstructible in finite time. So, the child, in being glutamatergically etched of neurons until the stage of cognitive development wherein Piagetan “object constancy” becomes constant, of necessity, must employ the Axiom of Choice, which so many mathematicians reject, simply in order to “construct” the object of perception in finite time. Moreover, given the same corpus of hyletic data, Child A's constructed object will not be exactly the same as Child B's constructed object, because, as physicist Rudolf K. Luneburg demonstrated in the Columbia University optics lab, A and B do not have identical “psychometric distance functions” on binocular visual space, thereby, in addition, making absolute localization of the constant-object construction, a macroscopic entity, in principle, impossible. From which, one can understand, “White on White” Constructivism, following hard on the Husserliana of reductive phenomenology, was more about shape than form -- for form, being an “object” of pure feeling, is wholly unconstructible, as Kandinsky well understood. So, in thinking about Kunstwissenshaft by a technological exteriorization of inner Musculpt, one must be aware that Musculpt involves form language, not a language of shape. Though every little bit helped, I learned about this not primarily from sculpture apprinticeship, drawing practice, painting exercises, music composition studies, attempts to paint music -- but from learning Japanese gardening taught in the traditional fashion which demands imitation and provides no explication.

	
“That tree has gei.  Prune this one so it too has gei.”

	“What is gei?”

	“Just prune the tree.”

        
“That rock arrangement there has gei.  Make an arrangement of these rocks here so it too has gei.”

	“What is gei?”

	“Just make the arrangement.”

Years later, after thousands of repetitions, a tree one pruned, a rock arrangement one made is finally acknowledged to have gei -- but one cannot see why. The word gei is untranslatable, but often translated as “art”; and, actually undefinable in the lexicon of Japanese Zen aesthetics. Later yet, one suddenly knows what has gei and what does not. If one stays with the “why” and the “what”, does not leave them alone, then further sudden insight eventually comes upon recognition that gei is not either/or, on or off, and that the degree of gei is positively correlated with rapidity of onset of generative empathy with the object of perception one is “feeling into” with respect to gei. With, with, with: i.e., relative-state. Degree of rapidity is a time-ordering property: think of grace-note articulation on the shakuhachi. Numbered Gödel numbers as “the place names of (operator) time” may appear quite a large leap, even one schizophrenogenic, given the psychiatric imputations to such place names, but I think if one were to work oneself into this, the intervening Takemitsu dan mosaics (step functions of November Steps) would become apparent.

My father was not only a good pilot, he was one of the best logistics troubleshooters the USAF ever had, but he did not play staff politics or do favors, and absolutely despised -- the correct word -- what industrial-military collusion did to America's officer corps in the post-WWII period. So, he retired from the five-sided crazy house young, and as a matter of personal pride, took no aerospace industry, second-career, parachute job. Wrapped in expertise and despisement, I grew up -- and absorbed logistics fundamentals by osmosis. Long before I was taken to the O-club for my first legal beer, I was drinking Gamagama Alpha, ginger ale, at the bar, listening to job scuttlebutt from those drinking Manhattans made with Canadian Club. Ugh! I remember almost being knocked off the stool back-hand for commenting on how little substantive conversation I overheard on the OC golf course, caddying. Ten percent, maybe -- but that small amount was very informative. Later, at university, being force fed the academics of political decision theory, I felt returned to primary school. Charles Lindblom's Politics and Markets was a dozen years after my time, but I remember his Pub Admin Rev article “The Science of Muddling Through” (so very British of a Yea-lie, Yea-ly, Yale-ee) being on a recommended reading list for a Human Behavior II seminar at AU's School of International Service, 1964, five years after the fact -- which, of course, I read (my practice was: study recommended; speed read required; skim course texts). Also -- or, more accurately, more so -- taught lavishly was Robert Dahl's polyarchy, but under the name “pluralism”, Dahl receiving no attribution. Coming from the mindset of Wright-Pat's AFLC directly to AU-SIS, Lindblom's “Muddling” seemed to me altogether elementary, as the hands-on experienced knew well that effective real-world implementation of a strategy, any strategy, requires everything, absolutely everything between purely unprepared tactical improvisation and the totalistic sand-tabled opplan with its myriad endlessly walked-through contingency-tree forests. To somehow not “get it” that “disjointed incrementalism” is one means to implement a strategic plan, and that the more you have planned the less disjointed your incrementalism by tactical improvisation is likely to be, seemed inexcusable, however elegant and detailed the discourse. By the memetime of Politics and Markets, with its critical account of interactive adjustment -- no need to consider overall needs of the polity just as, with the market, there is no need to consider the overall economy -- I was trying to figure out how to use a pencil of skew-parallels to sketch the relative-state juggled by a market sorting demon employing m-logically-valued monetary units tagged to externalities such that the index of political decision-need is reduced. I knew that the purported absence of need to consider the overall economy and the overall polity is based on theft, theft of negentropy from nesting domains which market economists conceal -- cook the econometric books -- under the rubric “externalities”. No economic input is free of externalities, though these are econometrically filtered, truncated, renormalized, regarded noise not signal. And by the memetime Dahl's faith in the power theory of polyarchy had foundered upon late-arriving insight into corporatism, partyism, and oligopolyism, I was trying to number the Gödel numbers of the polyadic identity transparency underlying the m-logically-valued autopoietic operators wielded by allelotropic market sorting demons such that F. A. von Hayek's “time-shapes of total capital stock” of any autopoionomy are chronotopologically “placed” in optimum Everett relative-state -- without resort to macroeconomic theft. And I knew that one fault lie in the very notion of the actor in action-based sociologies like that of Dahl and that of Lindblom. To quote C. G. Jung, as quoted on the frontispiece to Christopher G. Moore's novel The Big Weird (aka BKK, in metaphor to civilization at large as engaged in a form of Russian roulette over the past 300 years where all the revolver's chambers are loaded and several collective brain injuries have already been sustained) with a character very loosely inspired by Sterling Siliphant (e.g., no Vietnamese wife; and no deep dialogue with Juzo Itami; and no expert legal representation by, say, a Sesto Vecci; and no Dan Melnick as a walk-on; and no Miao as a member of a private club named Voice, one of five clubs in five countries owned by five filiopietistic Filipina sisters, each unsurpassed at re-creating -- not merely imitating -- Morgana King, Nancy Wilson, Dion Warwick, and so on):

[The persona] is only a mask for the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, and tries to make others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply playing a part in which the collective psyche speaks.

Two Essays in Analytical Psychology

Where I have long disagreed with Jung is over his belief that spiritual development involves an “individuation” wherein the persona's feigned individuality falls away. There is no individuality not feigned -- persona or no persona. This applies to actors of every sort in whatever kind of action-based system: physical, economical, sociological, psychological. Non-simple identity. Relative-state. Absence of individuality does not imply uniformity, except under 2-valued logic alone. No two or more states in relative-state are the same state, for selfsameness is possible only under 2-valued logic alone. Modern Western understanding of traditional animistic-pagan identity transparency as puppets-on-strings contagion is the result of identification with 2-valued logic alone. Identity transparency is not logically, ontologically, or experientially sameness, let alone selfsameness. I don't also say experimentally because, so far as I know, while the Aspect Experiments have demonstrated several aspects of this, other aspects have yet to be demonstrated. Getting rid of Descartes and Newton with Planck's quantum of action does not transform feigned individuality into individuated individuality so long as Planck's constant remains single-valued, as Aspect-demonstrated non-locality argues -- but once that constant becomes m-valued under m-valued Lukasiewicz logics, there is no classical limit and no defining simple-identity and selfsameness, except under 2-valued logic alone. In any logically-binary system, identity of the actors, by definition, can be nothing but feigned individuality, and their relations thereby must be interactions of mutual-dominance adjustments by evolutions or saltations rooted in coercive processes sublimated or overt. Though Jung broke with Freud, Jung retained the Freudian notion of civilization by sublimation -- and Jung did this by clinging to 2-valued logic at the very memetime Lukasiewicz discovered the m-valued logics of what Jung pejoratively regarded “participation mystique”, an up-graded version of the social anthropologist's “participation inconsiente” -- but which is actually the “engine” of social autopoiesis. In quantum mechanics, use of the terms “entanglement” and [Bose-Einstein] “condensation” similarly involves misnomering logic fundamentals, in this case, not only positing the binary opposition “discrete vs. continuous”, but giving logical and ontological precedence to the discrete, an unfounded predication. However, gaining recognition that identity-transparency, not truth-value, is the foundational notion of logic leads one toward saltationism and away from gradualist, uniformitarian, punctuated equilibriumism. End-means/means-end adjustments by serial analyses in unending attack -- fine. Just so each “end” be understood a teleological strange attractor established by complex-imaginary operator-time over von Hayek time-shape, and serial analytic sequence be treated but one scenario among multiple stacked scenarios, each based on decision-tree saltations considering a small number of alternatives. Now, “compute”, i.e., Musculpt, in simultaneous identity-transparent overlay the full collection of such stacked von Hayek time-shapes decomposed to serial sequence scenarios as numbered Gödel numbers crossed into numbered Gödel numbers and you have the rudiments of VirFut Q-Pro as progressive replacement for, not refinement of, the coercion-power polyarchical political decision theory responsible for the prevailing n-dimensional global crisis.

Polisci in America has been little more than a Choakumchld black propaganda effort. Dahl and Lindblom, for instance, throughout the period of the Cold War, produced The System Works -- But Needs a Little Refinement type discourse, and when they started emphasizing Refinement over Works were overtly attacked by the corporate entities on behalf of which Choakumchild careers are undertaken. The fifty-year period in question here was not only that of the Cold War but the critical window of opportunity in respect to the prevailing global crisis. Propagandizing the system that failed humanity, the biosphere, the home planet, rather than innovating at the theoretical foundations of an academic discipline further and further out of touch with the evolving quantum-relativistic comprehension of self-organization of natural processes, undoubtedly, immensely contributed to closing of the window of opportunity. No better was N. Chomsky's dissipation in moral upbraiding, rather than bringing his conceptual breakthroughs in generative linguistics to bear upon theoretical foundation of a political science which has utterly failed.

The question asked in the “Thematic Evasion and World War” section of my article entitled, “Echo of the Mockingbird: Why Postwar Historiography is Anti-Historiographic” -- “Indeed, did Hitler even exist as an absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct psychological entity after, say, 1930?” -- is directly related to Jung's idea that the persona is a played “part” through “which the collective psyche speaks”. The way projective-identification, transference, displacement, conversion work in regards to social conferral of role attributions and the effects of such conferral on cognitive functions, identity as actually experienced, and so on is little understood and less studied. As discussed in some detail in MOON vis-a-vis insurgent-terrorist infrastructures-networks, the degree to which functions of such role attributions are m-valued rather then single-valued, and the degree to which m-valued functions of roles are under m-valued Lukasiewicz logics -- how this relates to sociopolitical autopoiesis, its suppression, and consequences of that suppression -- goes virtually unconsidered. Given the prevailing nature of weapons systems, early in the 21st century, the human species is a dead species walking over this issue alone.

Writ large as inertias of human systems are psychopathologies of the normotic anchored to brains by glutamatergic neuronal etching at socialization of cognition upon prescriptive enculturation -- and, thus, deemed normative. When stability predilections, propensities, proclivities outweigh those of dynamic ongoing adaptation -- preponderance of gradualISM, uniformitarianISM, punctuationISM, interactionISM, adjustmentISM -- momentum has become inertia; the normotic, the normative. So compulsive has the normative normotic's attachment to normosis become that endogenous titers of glutamate are inadequate to maintain homeoSTASIS and virtually continuous oral infusion is required. My God! It looks like the Constitution has become unconstitutional. Whilst the prevailing prospective dominant global economic power re-proclaims static Confucianism its national-culture mandate -- three obediences, five prostrations, six honorifics, seven perseverances, nine olds glutamatergically etched upon brains with traditional, naturally synthesized, exogenously introduced glutamate -- globally, in the period of world wars, a multinational industry has vigorously emerged totally devoted to making the normotic normative and to becoming gloriously rich in the process. Meanwhile, the Second Law pays dirt to the pig sty normative normosis makes of the geo-bio-atmo-spheres. Whaooo… what a ponk!

Not radar per se as the heuristic analogue, the photoacoustic spectrometer. PRF generator -- pulse RATE frequency generator -- inside the phase-boundary bag responding to variations in ambient electromagnetic radiation sources outside the bag. Bag inside of a bag: the DNA molecule's free-electron gas core phase boundary inside the cellular plasmahaut phase boundary. Induced temperature oscillations flap the skin of the bag producing coherent, i.e., acoustically-modified, waves, just like Windows Media Player skin mode. Ambient-radiation driven free-electron temperature oscillations snap the DNA gas-core bag at given PRFs, which by acceleration-deceleration and Bose-Einstein condensation establish a bias control over the electron-transport-chain rate governor of the cellular plasmahaut's active transport system. Each type of genetic PRF piano player has its own fist: collagen DNA, muscle cell DNA, et cetera. For those into radar ferreting: Skin Head, Yo Yo, Fansong, Token, Scan Can… Each PRF of the genetic pulse-code generator is quadripolar, that is, correlated to the four nucleotide pairs: WiFi transmission of genetic information. Molecular-cellular Musculpt across scale levels where acceleration-deceleration rates of PRF (i.e., rates of a rate) bias control intersystemic (across scale levels) flows, and where time rates of change of the second-order time governor (i.e., rates of rates of a rate) bias control autopoiesis (which, more abstractly, is self-reflexivity, self-reentry, self-reference, requiring m-valued logics for adequate characterization).

Nucleotide pairs like a screen grid in a beam power tube? Microtubules of cytoskeleton similar on the cellular scale level? Coherent (acoustically-modified) waves produced by superconductant pi-electron gas core of DNA? DNA core like a photo-acoustic spectrometer? Then a flip-over across scale levels? Cytoskeleton like a sound-light (not light-sound) interaction device? The “counterforce to the pressure gradient term” in the canonical equation of the superconductant DNA model is the gravitational acceleration of the pi-electron parcel? These two scale levels of lattice-grids have anything to do with the Regge lattices of the Regge calculus? A means of reading numbered Gödel numbers stacked on a point in the m-logically-valued reference space?

So, think of the repetitive cycle of degenerative disease onset as resulting, on the most fundamental level, from a kind of maecon. Maeconing cellular growth and repair processes. A maecon is a false radio beacon for navigation. Odysseus learned about this long ago: siren's song. Only in the biological case, the false beacon is not space-related; it is a false temporal vector the cell and its molecular and submolecular components lock on. Repeated acute invasive-inducement of temporary shifts in normative values of the quantum-wave properties of DNA (frequency-response band, PRF, critical intensity, waveform, et cetera) induce chronic shifts, thus re-setting cellular clocks and immunological signifiers for self-identification (plural and m-valued): yielding, e.g., autoantibodies, anti-DNA antibodies, changes in cell morphology (e.g., the diagnostic LE cell in onset of SLE) due to chronic poor timing of metabolic processes, and so on. The maecons are extra-systemic factors (across scale levels) capable of altering a rate, rates of a rate, rates of rates of a rate.

Absolutely. I am saying that the whole of photo, electronic, radar-sniffer, people-sniffer intelligence is a collective psychological projection engendered by falsification of Schrödinger's wave equation through the probability-amplitude interpretation. The original engendering falsification was the dissimulation as an “Impossibility Theorem” of N. H. Abel's 1820's existence proof for domains transcendental to algebra. Many falsifications directly followed, progressively disorienting and double-binding the collective unconscious (e.g., consider Cantor's “seizures” and Nash's “hallucinations”, so-called) such that regressive compensatory projective-identifications were extrojected in transference as technological artifacts (both meanings of the word “artifact”). These artifacts mimic, parody, reduce to childish violence natural processes as they actually function, such actual functioning being substantially nonviewable because of the falsifications engendering the compensatory projections. What the full gamut of intelligence collection techno-artifacts regressively mimic are the submolecular, quantum-relativistic aspects of cell function -- the functioning of the biological cell. The DNA molecule, for instance, in one aspect, is a pulse-code receiver and transmitter incommensurately more sophisticated than any contemporary techno-artifact, for it deals in m-logically-valued information. A regressed version of this is, say, multi-frequency radar. Even GPS spatial localization of a radar source by minute time-differencing is a parody of the active-time differencing represented in the canonical equation descriptive of radiation exchange by superconductant free-electron gas core of DNA (no technological applications derivative of that observation, I bet -- Ha!). Purposes of the corpus of regressive techno-artifacts are killing, war, nature rape, human-species aggrandizement, so on; sole purpose of the natural processes regressively mimicked is LIFE. The vast bulk of the full resource base of the current global civilization with its information economy and all the rest is normotically devoted on a day-in/day-out basis to nurturing, not nature, but the regressive compensatory projective-identifications extrojected in transference as techno-artifacts. In such circumstances, any normal person is normotic, and any collection of such normotics constitutes a psychotic polity-socius. If this -- the total collection of such collections -- is not the embodiment of a fulminating collective psychosis, then it is hard to imagine what might be. VE-Day and VJ-Day actually accomplished little more than to drive a lesser-elaborated version of this psychosis more deeply into the marrow, there to briefly fester, before re-circulating for progressive saddleback march to a larger systemic crisis. A further/farther march of symptoms by the presenting psychosis will not solve the problems caused this planet by that psychosis. One reasonably expects the disease to run its course, and, considering all its dimensions, a human survival rate as low as 10-percent doesn't seem too wild of a WAG. From a trans-humanist and planetary perspective -- even the perspectives of half a million recently, and soon to be, extinct species -- such a course might be deemed therapeutic, however inhumane.

---

Contact the page editor

Return to:

•Top

•Homepage