TRANCHE 14

Gödel promulgated his several proofs, taking the “hits” therein involved, so as to avoid sustaining the very much larger “hits” that accepting non-dissimulated m-valued logics -- ten years old in rigorous codification by 1931 -- would have entailed. Though completeness was lost, though provable consistency was lost, though decidability was in some cases lost, 2-valued logic remained king over her mount. Palle Yourgrau (A World Without Time, Basic Books, 2005) presents the standard exonerating interpretation: even the preeminent experts had difficulty understanding what Gödel had accomplished. But when people refuse to accept something, are in denial, see a blue square when presented with a green circle, they do not experience themselves as refusing, as being stone cold insolents; they experience themselves as disagreeing, as not seeing it, as being unable to understand what is being said, as not comprehending how such a well-trained professional can come up with such goofy stuff -- and when enough people so behave, the collective unconscious goes into regressive overdrive. And if the issues are fundamental enough to a worldview construct, then death is in the wings, maybe even megadeath. Yourgrau suggests (p. 73) that over thirty years later, the likes of Bertrand Russell didn't quite understand what Gödel had accomplished:

In a letter written in 1963, Russell, while acknowledging the greatness of Gödel's achievement, did not conceal that he remained puzzled by it, asking rhetorically “are we to think that 2 + 2 is not 4, but 4.001?” This suggests that Gödel had purported to have demonstrated a flaw in classical mathematics, which precisely misses the point of Gödel's theorem.

Actually, though this comment by Russell may miss the point of Gödel's theorem, it does not miss the point of the point of Gödel's theorem -- the point of the point being the very point of Russell's book On Logical Atomism, written well before Gödel came on the scene. By driving metamathematics headlong into recursion, Gödel not only ran a spoiling operation against the gathering forces of Platonism (and, oh God, neoPlatonic Cabalism), with its emphasis on decompositional involutes -- pendant-donor recursive extension being the male answer to the intercalated female involutory unfolding from within of the enfolded -- but directed the social structure of attention away from The Monster: transfinite sets of orders of logical-value to a given proposition (presence of which absolutely kills truth-value as a fundamental in logic). What, even in the finite case, is the truth-value of, say, a ₉₉T₃₄₇-logically-valued proposition? A shade of real-number gray between 0 and 1? And if the involved proposition relates to the identity of electron A as distinguished from that of electron not-A, what is the truth-value of this particular shade of gray? Considering significance of the binary distinction between recursive pendant donors and involutive intercalation donors (something still being fought out in a war between the sexes over issues of DNA conductivity of electrons), there is no mistaking the fact that Turing just simply had to be removed from the scene: he-she-he was a canon potentially undirected, likely uncontrollable. But this was an issue long before Turing's preference for A as opposed to not-A became an item on the agenda of the governors. To accomplish the required spoiling operation and redirection of attention was the point of the point of Gödel's theorem. Russell likely understood this even better than did Gödel himself. Not only do transfinite sets of orders of logical-value kill truth-value, they totally nullify the law of non-contradiction, and thereby invoke quantum relative-state identity-transparent entanglement across the full spectrum of mathematics. Non-self-identical numbers! Just as, under animistic m-valued logics and thus “caught” in the “contagion” of the social anthropologist's “participation mystique”, a mere puppet native on hidden-variable strings, I cannot have simple identity, I cannot possess selfsameness, cannot be me and only me, so 2 cannot be 2 and only 2, and 2 + 2 cannot be 4 and only 4: it may well also be 4.001. Russell had spent his whole professional life trying to ensure that this would not be allowed to be so, and, thus doing, helped create two world wars in the process -- and, all but certainly, a third. Gödel's spoiling operation, Gödel's redirection of the attention, though moving in the same direction as that of Russell, and therefore winning Russell's acknowledgement of greatness, was too Dadaistic to suit Russell's temperament; the types of marches Russell participated in were not happenings: no copulation on a bed of wet noodles under a Kafkaesque black strobe light. Dadaism was understood far better in Vienna than in London. The way Gödel had gone about making the point of his point left too big a crack in the door. Russell, and many of the others to even a greater extent than Russell, wanted to take no hits at all. And if this could not be done in mathematics and physics, then it would be done in projective identification as mass warfare and in psychological displacement as holocaust. “In denial” hardly captures the state of mankind in amnesia, mankind in substitute memory. The psychological and neurological wherewithal simply no longer exists. Stone cold insolent refusal.

“Underwhelming” is hardly the word to characterize Gödel's spatialization of linear-time; “disgusting” is a better choice. The “intuitive” in “intuitive time” has not to do with time, but with the order of logical-value employed. “…time as we experience it in everyday life…” says Yourgrau (p. 126) in presenting Gödel's thought. The “we” here is the “coercive we” (the Nazi “we” holding a gun to my head every instant of the day, finger on the hair trigger) and the “time” here is one of the dozens my “I” and my “other I ams” experience everyday whenever this or that I attends to its or their awareness(es) of time-like properties. My “everyday life” is not abysmally impoverished existentially -- as apparently is the case with that of many others. Experiential time is a trick mirror image of brain state, of the order of logical-value employed in the given state of phasic activation on the prevailing tonic baseline: a subjectivity-rod measuring the baud-rate of consciousness (quantum physics being about TYPES of Zeitgebers [time givers] inside of types of Zeitgebers inside of types of Zeitgebers -- as David Bohm almost said). Don't believe it? Crawl into a flight simulator, as my I did at age 17. Now, get your head around “pilot fixation syndrome”. As Jonathan Livingston Seagull proved, we all have the inherent capacity to become pilots of inner space in everyday life. This baud-rate is in constant modulation according to quality of attention, attention being the phasic on the tonic convexing and concaving time's trick mirror: time is SEEN in the TYPES of space-change it induces at nested classes of relativistic limits (outer seeing or inner seeing -- both of which involve habituated residual tension patterns of the extraocular muscles: that's why flashbacks of PTSD can be dampened by “eye movement reprogramming”). You, chronomancer! you make your own time, your own chronotopology. Take hold of it and give it the shape you prefer! Prescriptive enculturation in general via glutamaturgic neuronal etching, and higher enculturation in particular via Professor Twackum, are smoothing functions which flatten the mirror. Undoubtedly imagining itself an incarnation of Piero della Francesca, virtually every time in one or another kind of time an I of mine walks down the road, that I visualizes the object field before it, as did consummate student of linear perspective Albrecht Dürer, through a screen grid (one of the decompositional involutes of the m-logically-valued reference space). Actually putting an actual screen out there before the eyes like Dürer actually did is not actually required to establish the reality-value of linear perspective. Arriving at the notion of linear perspective, as Francesca did more thoroughly than Alberti, was an imaginal act of reductive phenomenology, an ontic deconstruction of the nested collection of decompositional involutes superposed in the Husserlian “horizons” of a perceived object. All the show-offish trivia of post-Renaissance painterly virtuosity stood in the way of further insight until Analytical Cubism briefly appeared on the scene, only to be quenched by world war. Whichever I walking down the road, that I constantly identifies the vanishing points of the object field, the skew-parallels, the chiaroscuro damping down my me. What working artist does not experience some correlate of this -- concrete contents relating to the foci of her particular aesthetic concerns? Reinvestment of attention into enculturated automated functions, leading to deautomatization of those functions. One such function being the ego function with its false claim to be absolutely-in-so-far-as-itself-and-only-itself. Habituating a state of deautomatization by rhythmically engaging in THE PRACTICE. This THE PRACTICE is done in everyday life and is set against everyday life. Not only against method, not only against formalization, against methodizing and formalizing the socius -- Weberian systematization and/or otherwise. This or that I daily sees that “my I” is vanishing, is continuously and unrelentingly vanishable, is no-thing but a coordination point in a nexus: the mere intersection of Prakriti and Purusha, of Giri and Ninjo, to put it one way or another -- ontologically or sociologically. My “I's” did this and dozens of expansions of this for 2 hours a day in walking meditation for 5 years (aged 25 through 29) while painting music several hours a day throughout the same period. This was not higher enculturation; this was systematic deautomatization while being a gardener when not painting and not walking, a gardener making the act of digging trees piece work into a form of concentration in self-observation, a form of meditation. The “observer state” and its infinite-regress-in-the-selfhood (which is the nature of the case) prerequisite to engagement in Husserl's reductive phenomenology as an actual perceptual-proprioceptive activity, not just thinking about what such reduction must be, became a foundational habitus which spontaneously returns when not disallowed by the lower-mind intrusions of over-enculturated brain dysfunctions. Deautomatization by concentration in self-observation absolutely means entering time-warp; there is no escape. This tells us something about the differences between “intuition” under relative automatization of functions and “intuition” under relative deautomatization of functions. Attributes of the object “transcendental” to “normal” consciousness operating under the ₁T₂ order of m-valued logics become “incarnate” to direct awareness in the states of consciousness associated with orders of logical-value higher than ₁T₂. What do such attributes look like, sound like, feel like? Studies in modern art and art music give one a good first impression. You will look across the table at your wife and see a fleeting visual reverberation of a Cubist portrait; you will take a sip of coffee and the term “taste polymorphism” will take on new meaning. The phenomenological content of every psychiatric symptom is normative under some higher order of logical-value. These symptoms being deemed inherently pathological, the contents of higher states of consciousness are blockaded, disallowed entry to most everybody's everyday experience. This, of course, is a primary inducer of individual and collective psychosis. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be in only one kind of time if generative empathy is experienced. Generative empathy exists across an array in orders of logical-value, differing orders of logical-value permitting and mandating different orders of identity-transparency, “participation mystique”, “contagion”, “possession” -- call it what you will. These states are not independent of “time as we experience it”, and the only way one could possibly imagine that there is only one kind of “intuitive time” is to not have experienced these states. Whose “everyday life”? Certainly not mine, and not that of the traditional Mekong delta peasant animist, whose experience was characterized in 1912 by the French anthropologist, Giran, (Magie et Religions Annamites, Paris, Challamel, translated by Nguyen Khac Kham during the early 1960s), as given below:

…everything becomes confused and blended into one. The state of everything is essentially precarious. Their aspect is elusive and affords no hold for us to seize. This curious vision of the universe explains some beliefs which otherwise would be hardly conceivable. Each individuality being very badly defined, its limits are wavering, extensible. They do not confine within the individual himself but overlap him and encroach on his surroundings. Under these conditions, it is as difficult to discern the individual from the group to which he belongs as to discern him from everything that touches him or reminds of himself. With such concepts, we may understand that the universe must appear as an inextricable entanglement of reciprocal influences where persons and things, in a perpetual state of instability, become fused together while borrowing mutually their qualities.

Non-simple identity, entanglement, relative-state… There is no such thing as the Kantian thing-in-itself -- not because it is transcendental to appearances as presented to the normal state of consciousness; not because it cannot be apprehended in any state of consciousness whatsoever; not because there is no such thing as a “bare object”; not because, as W. V. O. Quine would have it, anyone purporting to perceive a bare object would be a “cosmic exile”; but because the universal physical constants (like Einstein's speed of light, Planck's limiting time, Planck's limiting distance) are not single-valued, are not only m-valued, but are m-valued under m-valued logics -- therefore, non-simple identity, entanglement, relative-state prevails amongst macroscopic as well as microscopic objects, all attributes of such objects being viewable, hearable, touchable (or some direct correlate thereof) in some state of consciousness operating under some order of logical-value. Long before the advent of quantum physics whole peoples, cultures, societies lived consciously in an m-logically-valued quantum universe. It has been the creators and practitioners of quantum physics who have been unable to withstand the very idea of consciously living in such a quantum universe! This inability to “live it” has, conservatively, already cost the lives of a hundred million people. And it could well yet cost the lives of a billion and more in due course. Violent death inflicted by projective identification engaged in by the “best” and the “brightest”.

Even Husserl didn't practice reductive phenomenology; he only thought about what it must be like so to practice, as his book on internal time consciousness (The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness, M. Heidegger, editor, Indiana U. Press, 1964 English language edition of the 1928 German original) clearly indicates to anyone who has so practiced. Husserl even starts out this book by assuming a Kantian “given time”, in spite of his principle of epoché which is supposedly inviolable and doubts absolutely everything until confirmed by reductive phenomenology (a practice employed to “reduce” transcendental attributes of objects, and possibly even non-objects, to direct apprehension [I would say: direct apprehension while in some state of consciousness operating under its associated order of logical-value; such that the “reduction” of the object is actually an “expansion” of the subject, wherein the subject-object distinction progressively abates as the orders of logical-value employed increase]). Husserl must not have understood what reductive phenomenology is all about! And, clearly, Gödel only read Edmund Husserl and theoretically embraced transcendental phenomenology as an antidote to the too, too Kantian aspects of Kant's oh-so German Idealism. Anyone who only thinks and reads, who is not in THE PRACTICE, makes unwarranted limiting proclamations about sensory dimensions -- particularly someone who devotes his whole life virtually exclusively to establishing limits. Is this particular devotion the “philosophical disease” Wittgenstein diagnosed, or, by differential diagnosis, is the philosophical disease this particular “devotion”? Phylacteries come in many shapes-of-style. “Intuitive time”: this is the notion Gödel had to determine the properties of. There can only be an intuition of time because the five senses do not include the time sense. So, apperception of time, under this characterization, must be transcendental to sensory dimensions. Suspending disbelief, Gödel begins his philosophical investigations of time accepting insistence upon the reality of time, Husserl's given time, which is transcendental, but simultaneously, in so far as clocks can be synchronized by reaching consensus on a rest frame (this consensus becoming, by implication, Universal Observer Q, a collective occasion of experience and, most assuredly, one can be sure, one of those cosmic exiles W. V. O. Quine liked to talk about), insists that the Kantian transcendental, if not the Machian, is just too, too transcendental (thus hypostatizing levels of transcendental-ness epistemologically denied any possible ontological hypotaxis), hence cannot be reality-oriented, and therefore must be discounted as Idealism unacceptable. So what does Gödel do to establish the reality-value of the transcendental intuition of time, a transcendental intuition which is not too, too transcendental? Not much, apparently. He axiomatizes and formalizes it, and in so doing demonstrates that it cannot be time, only space, and therefore cannot be an axiom self-evident, thus suspending belief. The real task of the philosopher-scientist, you see, is to get the axioms right -- then who cares about incompleteness (even if possible unprovable but possibly improvable inconsistency might still be an irritant). The right axioms, of course, are those self-evident, as Euclid so long ago postulated (and upon which Francesca's books on Perspectiva were based: my model for drawing from the nude was absolutely obsessed with Francesca and Alberti). That real axioms are self-evident is itself an axiom (requiring self-evident self-evidence, a form of self-referential re-entry like that employed in Gödel's theorem, a self-reference that is not in reality-value an actual self-reference, and certainly not of the liar-paradox type, we can be sure) is no problem for all of us who know about necessary incompleteness and unprovable consistency (which is likely not improvable). What, me worry? Oh, Alfred, just stop that! The axiomatic method emerged amongst the Greeks during a period of collective hysteria over the fertility cults, just as the impulse leading to Formalism (by back-reaction against Cantor's “contributions” of the 1870s) emerged amongst inheritors of the Greeks' methods during a period of collective “Yellow Peril” hysteria (a “projection” of what was happening to the European mind under impress of The Great Books of the East). Rug merchants come out of the rat holes of Asia! Did they spawn the Franco-Prussian war?

What sort of things were intuitive about intuitive time for a man like Gödel? Yourgrau gives us an example (p. 115):

What Gödel did was construct a limit case for the relativistic geometrization of time. He would do this by bringing to the fore various properties that anything deserving the name of intuitive time would have to possess, including Einstein's requirement that the series of events be asymmetrically ordered, so that if A is before B, it cannot also be after B.

Is this requirement about “the series of events” a property of time or is it mandated by the order of logical-value employed to process awareness of the event-connectivity hypostatized as time? Space having undergone haptification, so must time, eh? How many kinds of EPR entanglement are there and therefore how many kinds of time that can be violated? Not much Husserlian epoché was employed here by Gödel. The defined-in notion that the collection of events in question is unquestionably a “series” not only spatializes by fiat, but mandates linearity to that which is spatialized. Not much of a surprise that the end result of the exercise is spatialization of linear-time. Apparently, Gödel didn't get around to axiomatizing and formalizing intuitive space, which (or is it “what”) has to be not too, too transcendental, in that a ponderable-space sense is not among the five senses, and Kantianism, Machian or no, is Idealism unacceptable -- not to mention Plato and Vedic Idealism, which was probably also unacceptable to a “Platonist” like Gödel (but not Schrödinger). “Platonist” in quotes because no one who gives recursion a central position can be regarded an authentic Platonist. And no one who believes, as Gödel apparently did, that “we perceive objects and understand concepts” (as quoted by Yourgrau, p. 173) is an actual Platonist. Platonism holds that we understand objects and perceive concepts. Contrary to his statement, Gödel apparently went some distance in this direction, by continuing the thought and observing that “Understanding is a different kind of perception” (quoted by Yourgrau, p. 173), but never arrived at the destination. The object (exterior or interior) is epiphenomenal to the order of logical-value employed, is predicated, accommodated, placed in hypotaxis, is socially constructed, is constituted, constellated, enculturated, is made possible by the glutamaturgic neuronal etching that fixes the order of logical-value employed in “everyday life” to the ₁T₂ variety. The object is something we have to be taught; it is something we learn to understand very early in life, beginning in the womb. And since we are sensually enfeebled by this learning-to-understand-the-object process, we have virtually no perception of concepts and try inappropriately to understand them, rather than to perceive them as the phenomena they are. Reductive phenomenology does not try to understand the concept itself, it tries to stop understanding exterior and interior objects so that concepts may be spontaneously perceived free of the willfulness understanding imposes. In order to undertake reduction, one experientially -- in immediacy of the outer and inner world as one finds it given to one's prevailing capacity for direct perception and proprioception -- challenges precedence and predication wherever they are understood to be. Habituation of this attitude of challenge places one in a state of deautomatization wherein it becomes possible to cast understanding aside. One may then proceed toward identity transparency with the bare percept which is the concept itself. Words are the worst: unnatural names. Understood objects (outer and inner), little better. Perceived concepts draw the sensibility out of its cave into the cloud of unknowing. To be in identity transparency is to be in what Swedenborg called “the form of Heaven”. Call it what you will: words are the worst. Not to make reduction-of-ontology-to-existence-ology (which is a real “reduction”) by establishing its hypotaxis to epistemology, still, though “existence” of logical precedence does not reduce to temporal precedence, it must be admitted that temporal (which, in the final analysis, according to Gödel, may be spatial) entanglement cannot be avoided, that, that is, identity of event A cannot be absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct from identity of event B, unless the law of non-contradiction is adhered to -- A being A, and B being not-A. The law of non-contradiction prevails absolutely only under the ₁T₂ order of logical-value. A cannot be A and only A, and B cannot be B and only B under any order of logical-value except the ₁T₂ order. Moreover, this simplistic observation skirts the issues of the identity relationship between event A and instant A “where” event A is in time when it “events” itself, the identity relationship between event B and instant B “where” event B is in time when it “events” itself, the identity relationship between instant A and instant B independent of events A and B, the identity relationship between instant A and event B, the identity relationship between instant B and event A, and how all of these self-identities and identity-relations change as orders of logical-value employed change -- relative to the rest frame, relative to an inertial frame, relative to an accelerating frame (about which we know the equivalency principle), relative to a frame undergoing time-rate-of-change of acceleration (about which we do not yet know the equivalency principle), and so on. This philosophical investigation conducted by Gödel was undertaken well after 1931, and Gödel was still ignoring what had happened to the notion of logical-value in 1921 (1917 if we speak only of 3-valued logic). Before looking at the possible-probable why he so ignored, let's have a look at what he might otherwise have done, had he sat down and talked with Kandinsky while the two were hanging out in Vienna coffee klatches -- Kandinsky and Schoenberg having exchanged role attributions: Kandinsky composing; Schoenberg painting -- (though, admittedly, Gödel was probably too young when the opportunity prevailed). Such days as those are gone, at least under the ₁T₂ order of logical-value.

Empirical positivism may be a transcendental idealistic philosophy, but it is not too, too transcendental to just the degree it is practiced by exercise of the senses (perceptual and proprioceptive), not just by thinking about and reading about what exercise of the senses must be like, and not just by using one's senses to read one experimental gauge or another. How could we (“coercive we” to be sure, which is what finite-valued logics are all about: prescription, force, murder implicit) possibly know that an axiom is self-evident? And how can my I know that a self-evident axiom is evident to my me and not only to the evident self of the axiom-in-itself (which, according to the too, too transcendental Kant, cannot be knowable, certainly not “as we experience it in everyday life”)? Which would here be a relevant consideration, if time, as Kant maintained, is a self-evident “category of our understanding”, what Husserl called the “given time”, and hence is a “given”, a postulate, an axiom for all possible-world physical theories. How can I know that intuitive time is only intuitive, transcendental, that is, and not SENSUAL, unless I were to exercise the senses relative to this question? What kind of reality-value-type philosophical investigation of these issues could I make that would not involve exercising the senses by sensually observing what they have to say about the matter at issue? And after one engages in such observation then one might record a report of the findings. Ravel's diatonic, ₁T₂-order, key-signatured Bolero is just such a report relative to sensory apperception of the properties of linear-time. The corpus of Tantric literature is another such report (a body of literature assiduously studied by Schrödinger, who, moreover, actually practiced its empirical-positivistic indications with what was surely a particular subset of his paramours, two teenaged sisters, while writing the dodecaphonic, m-logically-valued, key-signature-free, time-independent wave equation, descriptive of the “basic shape” of the fundamental (in concrete eroticism of the “real-world” Schrödinger case: trivalent) oscillator generating the cosmic frequency domain, something of a slap in the face to bivalent Ravel). All these guys were more or less hanging out together. Engaged in highbrow locker room banter! Gödel almost certainly got his idea for the incompleteness proof by reading about the urinal placed in the 1913 (the year Russell completed his Principia) Armory Fair, the decontextualized “found object” being the “bare object”, that is “The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even” (the stripping being Husserl's “reduction” of the transcendental) -- the (alchemical, Anima, Jungian) “bride” in Gödel's case being mathematics (“Queen of the Sciences”), not art, and not only a nightclub (i.e., the unconscious) performer, Gödel, of course, being one of her “bachelors”, even. Decontextualization is an early stage of practical transcendental reduction, a stage eventually trivialized by a whole movement: Pop Art, one big… Campbell's soup can. And John Cage's minutes and seconds of ambient noise was far more than a mere musical metaphor for one Zen hand clapping: it illustrated how decontextualization (removal of attributed meaning) can transform noise into musical sound. This is an actual practice one undertakes in walking meditation, for instance, walking meditation being one way to practice reductive phenomenology (walking and thinking not being equivalent to walking meditation, as any German who has visited Kandy must know [insiders' joke]). Before Kandinsky left Russia, he tried to start an institute for the study of synaesthetic experience, experience like, for instance, colored hearing. What is the “bare object” like? Is it the everyday object with all its enculturated attributes stripped away? This, we can hardly imagine to be the case, as the bride stripped bare is anything but without attributes -- quite the contrary! The pieces of clothing she wears are merely her various personas, her learned behaviors, her consensuated attributes introjected. As long as she retains these, she is an object, a fetish, a social construct; and the act of stripping her involves removal of the enculturated subject-object distinction itself. Un-draw a distinction! Erasing is a form of non-doing. Decontextualization is also an early stage in SM induction, you know, a process by which the sex object is psycho-physiologically stripped bare. Assimilating general implications of this requires undergoing, like in medical school, “sexual desensitization week”. Practiced exercise of the senses involves voyeuristic observation not only of the object -- objective or subjective -- but also observation of the senses themselves. The in-practice fact of this simply cannot be escaped -- however much hyperbole one wishes to heap upon retroflexion, héautonomie, and so on. And “as soon” as the senses are observed, they undergo functional change: deautomatization. “As soon” itself gets deautomatized: turbulence in time-rate perception. No mere retroflexion in a context of Sakharovian metric elasticity of the linear-time frame. When the automatized neuropsychological structures of spatiotemporal awareness deautomatize, they deautomatize to functional modalities which -- no longer being automatized as structures -- may become cross-correlated. The color of time? Study of cross-modal correlations between sensory dimensions has a fair corpus of studies in the published scientific literature. Neurologists are now starting to do this artificially: cross-patching vision to tactile sensation, for instance. You can learn to see the object as a series of prickles running across your back: green is more like a tickle; red like a scratch by her long nails. Monday is blue; Tuesday, brown; Wednesday, orange… Fuchsia is e''''; aquamarine, g''; cobalt, A… THE triangle is yellow; THE square, rose; THE tetrahedron, cornelian… Deeper deautomatization leads from cross-modal correlations to fusion of sensory dimensions: full-blown synaesthesia. No five senses, only sense. What is that like? There is no telling, for there are no words for it; there is only Musculpt for it. Now, is there some “feature” of only-sense as Musculpt that is an equivalent to what could be regarded the time sense? In order that philosopher-scientists may investigate that question, parameters of the Musculpt manifold would have to be discovered and their properties explored. This is what Kandinsky's institute for the study of synaesthesia would have attempted to accomplish. In the event, however, having received no support, he tried to do what little he could in his painting and later at the Bauhaus in juxtaposition with colleagues like Klee. There can be little doubt that visual-color, tone-color, and ₁T₂-logically-intuitive time are intimately related, chromodynamics of the instant, or some such, but this can only be ascertained with some degree of confidence by hypercomplex m-logically-valued sensory explorations on the Musculpt manifold numbered with numbered Gödel numbers. The involved cross-patched, biofeedback, synaesthetic, m-logically-valued n-dimensional phase-space would be decomposed to a holographically-projected 3-space photo-acoustic representation by using topological transformations of sensory dimensions (there being an unlimited variety of these to choose from) to encode phases of the space, operators on the space, invariants, laminations, partitionings, and so on. Indeed, Nature herself, the Bride, may have been doing this all along, for, you see, reality, as such, is not merely a matter of all things under the sun, unless, that is, the sun be the Sun Goddess, A(ma)terasu: “ma” meaning “sacred space” and being the root homonym for all recursively generated spoken languages (in the last decompositional involute of any chosen [Russellian] partitioning TYPE is to be found the root element for any possible-world-logic lambda conversion). Topological transforms of sensory dimensions in this nonlinear perspective would, for instance, be the equivalent of factors in linear perspective like parallel lines meeting at a vanishing point on the horizon. This project is likely best approached by a human pod stress-orientedly trained for higher-dimensional virtual-reality explorations in biofeedback-equipped isolation-flotation tanks to practice EcherFormDance as a means to accomplish the long-range neuronal phase correlations prerequisite to learning the sonic-visioning which transpires in the melon of the bottle-nosed dolphin's brain. This is an experimental approach to verification of intra-subjective and inter-subjective (as they can be understood only under the ₁T₂ order of logical-value) reports by subjects highly trained in fair-witness autosensory observation techniques. Actual empirical-positivistic verification comes only with “knowledge through identity”. Too new-age for you? Too bad. And that leads us into the possible-probable why Gödel ignored what had happened to logical-value in 1921.

It has not been -- from very early on, from Titchener's (₁T₂-linear-)times and before -- that the verifiability problem cannot be solved; it has been that the likely results of such verification have been deemed impermissible. Stone cold insolent refusal! Oh the dread, the loathing, the horror, the -- shall we say it? -- terror. The demigods have juggled definitions as required so as to keep the impermissible impermissible. When that no longer worked, they threw their lot with the military and increasingly specialized -- directly or indirectly -- in weapons systems development. They didn't take their ball and go home; they surrounded with automatic rifles the sandlot Pythagoras once used to scratch out his theorem. This is the primary reason why our life-world is the way it is today: all other latent collective hysterias and fundamentalisms were activated and stoked by this behavior -- on a synchronisitic relative-state basis, of course. Any definitional de-subterfuging that would have made the impermissible permissible was suppressed with yet more definitional dissimulation. De-subterfuging would be, by definition alone, a de-finite-izing, as definitioning is a finite process. Isn't it? Or is it? If it is, why the “de” in “definition”? Like a stone skipping over the surface of a dark pond, Yourgrau's discourse in A World Without Time periodically touches upon the definitional conundrum. Hilbert wanted to firm up foundations of Cantor's naive theories so as to save the set theory Cantor created, a body of theory which had become the basis of number theory, without which mathematics could hardly remain secure. The rub was this: saving Cantor's set theory seemed to mean saving his notions of the transfinite. Could the two bodies of thought be separated from each other so as to save the former and debunk the latter? This was the task the axiomatic formalists set for themselves (and which Dr. Bourbaki, at the University of Nancago, unrelentingly followed, regardless of whatever existential denials axiomatic metamathematics received). As the whole project in Foundations seemed to founder on Gödel's theorems, Hilbert was so panicked he announced, as Yourgrau informs us, his readiness to embrace both aspects of Cantor's thought: set theory and notions of the transfinite. And rather than the or the whole of formalism had been based upon. Kierkegaard's Either/or was on the verge of becoming Elena Petrovna Blavatsky's Both/and. Hilbert would abandon his insistence on finiteness and entertain the possibility of a transfinite collection of premises, a Cantorian set thereof -- which, for all anyone knew, would be the death knell of practical calculability (the kind of calculation that can actually be done in finite time by a finite mind or a finite-process “difference engine”: assuming that potentially infinitely extendable linear-time is a perfectly rigid rod not limitable to some finite and not relativisitically dilatable as baud rates approach absolute limiting values of dynamical variables (presently a big assumption, in this era of Sakharovian metric elasticity, burgeoning quantum computers, flexible superstrings, loop quantum gravity, and an accelerating universe [but no limiting acceleration or limiting time rate of change of acceleration, only a limiting velocity, in propagation of light, because Einstein's second wife did not follow in steps of the first and neglected to tell him about existence of these other two limiting cases, limiting cases also ignored by Gödel as he imagined his timeless Gödel universe as a limiting case]). But the mathematical panic was only momentary, and quickly “displaced”: very soon the weapons systems took over, redirecting the social structure of attention even amongst the corpus of mathematicians. Gödel kept his nose to the grindstone, however, and in another Dadaistic triumph demonstrated, just as onset of a second world war came to fulmination, consistency of Cantor's “continuum hypothesis” with the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (this theory being the manner in which Cantor's naiveté was to have been banished). Another failure in attempts to draw the desired distinction! Only after almost two decades postwar did the project to separate the two streams (as the initializing impulse had been the hope they were separable into two) of Cantor's thought get back on track: Paul Cohen demonstrated in 1963 the independence of Cantor's continuum hypothesis -- a hypothesis about the transfinite, not about the finite sets number theory was supposedly recursively built up from one upon another progressively toward the potential infinite -- from the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. This success at drawing the desired distinction could be interpreted to mean that non-Cantorian set theory (the theory wherein transfinite sets of whatever order would be potential rather than actual) is as “valid” as Cantorian set theory (which, given the continued naiveté of Cantorian set theory, may not be saying much) -- given that “intuitive” mathematical truth-value, which underlies the prevailing notion of validity, even if syntactical “proof” and semantic “truth” are not the same “things”, whatever The Meaning of Meaning might be (Ogden's and Richards' book by that title was published the year after Wittgenstein's Tractatus, neither of which provided much insight into the matter), had yet to be demonstrated self-evident (under the ₁T₂ order of logical value, which was the only such order Gödel and Cohen ever worked with). For remember that “intuitive” and “intuition” as used by mathematicians, physicists, and academics in general is in no way related to what Jung called the “intuition function”: “intuitive” means commonsensical, obvious, as every sane person should know, what you “just know” (as a result of enculturation and “membership” in the dominant culture). “Intuitive mathematical truth” may not be plain old “intuitive truth” or “the god's truth”, but all three are what any properly prepared sane person should know so long as he is employing the ₁T₂ order of logical value in his ratiocination in everyday life, the only order of logical-value wherein the law of non-contradiction is not violated to one degree or another. But, even so, as Gödel demonstrated, even under only the ₁T₂ order this ratiocination may not be consistent and it certainly will not be complete. Anyone doubting this is invited to struggle with Cohen's Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis (Reading: Benjamin-Cummings, 1966) as I did repeatedly during the '70s and '80s. But confirmation of the self-evident-ness of intuitive mathematical truth was one of those hypostatized “things” this whole effort of formalization had been formulated to achieve! In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy it! A diagonal-proof-type principle (wild angles, tilts, Cubist, Surrealistic, and damnably Dadaistic) which, soon after Cohen published his demonstration, was carried out concretely in a sector of the external world called Vietnam via collective application of the principles of projective identification. Regression in service to the ego and only the ego, if and only if there is an ego, which can only be absolutely-in-so-far-as-the-case under the ₁T₂ order of logical value where the law of non-contradiction prevails absolutely. Stone cold insolent refusal (and its “real-world” thematic-analogue-type consequences).

But what if superposition of the actual Cantorian transfinite “continuum” set of Husserlian “horizons” or Cubist “facets” of the macroscopic object (Platonically “demerged” to a potentially infinite but actually finite sequence of single-horizon “images”, this sequence being experienced as “intuitive time”) is the reason Gödel ignored the m-valued logics which were on the scene for ten years when he produced his incompleteness theorem? If, as physicist John A. Wheeler has said, Gödel's theorem is too important to be left to the mathematicians, then Cantor's continuum hypothesis is too important to be left to the mathematicians, the physicists, and the philosophers. Composers and artists have been synchronistically involved in the Cantorian debate ever since breakdown of the diatonic music system into chromaticism and deterioration of post-Renaissance pictorial conventions clearly seen with the pointillism of Impressionism. Cubism, Futurism, color theory debates, color field painting: all of these and much more have been reflections on the nature of “intuitive time” highly relevant to the issues involved -- even if the nature of the media employed forced signification into a too reductionistic treatment (the Musculpt medium not being available). Reversal in conscious awareness of the “Platonically demerged” Husserlian “horizons” or “facets” is what Jean Gebser in The Ever-Present Origin (Ohio U. Press, 1985 edition of the 1949 German original, pp. 23-9) called “the emergent transparency of time” or “the concretion of time” which renders structures transparent as depicted, for instance, in the Analytical Cubist image of the macroscopic object. It seems unlikely that Gödel was anymore unaware of Cubism by 1931 than he was unaware of m-valued logics by 1931. The nude Anima, having descended the staircase, needed to return from whence she came. This did not occur, however, because she was “in projection” (psychologically no less than pictorially).

People who cannot introspect cannot “extrospect” because what they extrospect is their corpus of projections. Opposition to self-observation by those identified with simple selfsameness is psychological defense mechanism vis-à-vis the corpus of projections they are in a state of attachment with. But this inside/outside topological orientability can only be absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct under the ₁T₂ order of m-valued logics, the only such order wherein the law of non-contradiction holds sway and structure is opaque, where there is no such thing as a “supersolid” state of matter (“supersolid” being yet one more black propaganda term: calling the thing by the name of its opposite), Gebser's structural transparency, or animistic identity transparency. Though all of this can be traced back to the divergence between Greek and Chinese medicine, and probably further yet, the immediate crisis was not of Cantor's creation; it was the inevitable result of Abel having for the first time solved an equation of the 5th degree or higher, such equations being unsolvable in a finite number of steps. Eric Temple Bell, during the 1930s, then or soon to be, I can't remember the dates, president of the American Mathematical Association, at the very time the Gödelian impasse was cusping, wrote extensively about implications of Abel's achievement relative to transcendental equations (not the Abelian groups receiving all the attention: really important matters rarely receive attention and are almost always suppressed). This first solution came during the 1820s. In order for Abel's finite mind to reach solution in finite time to an equation that cannot be solved in a finite number of steps, Abel had to create (or discover) transcendental functions (which obviously have something to do with transcendental numbers like the e of the natural logarithms, which provide some of the simplest examples of m-valuedness, a property Roger Penrose tells us (p. 136, The Road to Reality, Jonathan Cape, 2004) was taught to him at university in a fashion “distasteful” and a “brutal mutilation”). The existence of transcendental functions as a component of the “difference engine” capable of providing solution to transcendental equations (those of degree greater the 5) INEVITABLY lead to Cantor's explorations and to the notion of the actual infinite set, an actual set the Axiom of Choice would allow to be chosen in finite time by a finite mind such as that presumably possessed by Abel.

So, one may accurately say that Russell's On Logical Atomism, Russell's and Whitehead's Principia, opposition to the Axiom of Choice, the Hilbert program to formalize foundations only on a “finitary” (to use Hilbert's term, as explained by Yourgrau) basis, Wittgenstein's Tractatus, and Gödel's theorems were all active attempts, not only to debunk Cantor's treatment of the transfinite, but also to bury, or direct attention away from, implications of Abel's transcendental functions which are associated with the m-valued properties of transcendental numbers, which, in turn, as the cycle of 2p values on the unit circle of the complex plane indicate, are self-referential in character, thus leading INEVITABLY, not only to the liar's paradox, not only to the paradox of the tortoise and the hare, but to the notion of m-logical values to a given proposition, rigorously codified in 1921. All of this dissimulation of several genuine insights, having gone down over the previous century or so, synchronistically yielding the Franco-Prussian war and two world wars, the Turing machine as a finitary difference engine was born in the hurried and harried atmosphere of global war by an act of mental rape -- the extended pendant donor of generalized recursion being the instrumentality of the rape. People in many fields throughout the period were all over the fundamental issues in question. Even poetry. The Rilke of Neue Gedichte was hard onto Cantor's defense by 1907 with his “object poem”, fully realized in 1923 with Sonnets to Orpheus and Duino Elegies, which was two years after m-valued logics were first rigorously codified and one year after Russell's debunking of Cantor was defended by the Wittgenstein of Tractatus and the T. S. Eliot of Wasteland (Wittgenstein would later somewhat redress the damage done with his bluebook and Eliot would similarly more or less retract with his quartets). Recursion was generalized and made omnipotent so as to block applications of the decompositional involute which has impermissible -- and terrifying -- implications about the very idea of the nature of identity. Logical precedence, ontological precedence, temporal precedence. Precedence is the common factor. Change one and all three change by virtue of their common factor. The central premise of Platonism is: essence precedes existence. The central premise of Existentialism is: existence precedes essence. Challenge validity of the notion “precedes” and still there is an implicit common factor: an identifiable identity to which the categories essence and existence apply. Some notion of identity is also implicit in logic, being, and time. Change the properties of time and the order of logical-value employed automatically changes, as does the very notion of the notion of identity at play. Being, essence, existence also similarly change. These are all mutually defining: there is no changing one, while holding all the rest constant. The Axiom of Choice is quintessentially Platonistic anamnesis: in such choosing one implicitly chooses all-that-is as enfolded, and any discrete-finite demerges, “transverse” to linear-time, logically and ontologically by decompositional involutes as Platonic amnesis (if this were not the case, the Axiom of Choice would violate the Continuum Hypothesis by “falling between”). Were this Platonism allowed as permissible, each order of logical and ontological precedence decompositionally involuted would involve its own notion of the notion of identity corresponding to the order of logical-value employed. The type of identity required to logically construct irreversible linear-time exists only at the very bottom of the hierarchy of logical precedence “where/when” demergence to the ₁T₂ order prevails. Only on this order of logical-value, wherein the law of non-contradiction holds sway, can event A be absolutely distinguished from event B and the two placed in ordinal relation. Effective calculability is limited to Turing computability (Church's hypothesis) if and only if there is no calculation which is not conducted in linear-time (and linear-time is homogenous, non-dilatable, without varying densities, without curl, without chronotopology, without varying baud rate as absolute limits of dynamical variables are approached). If there is a time that is not linear-time and calculation can transpire in that non-linear time, then Church's hypothesis is incorrect. Kairos is a Christian name for a kind of time other than linear-time. Kala is an Indic name for a kind of time other than linear-time. Both of these have to do with decompositional involutes. And these involutes involve hierarchies of logical and ontological precedence, as well as different orders of identity. All of this is the specter Cantor brought into higher mathematics in responding unreservedly to the promptings of Abel's transcendental functions used to solve equations of the 5th degree or higher. Cantor's definition of a transfinite set yielded ordering of the set into subsets by decompositional involutes via cuts of the continuous real-number line until that line was nothing but “Cantor dust”. Cut a length of line; cut each half of that cut line; cut each of the four sections; and so on and so on. Numbers are the Dedekind cuts thus made (to simplify matters quite a bit). But under the Axiom of Choice, this “cutting” (actually its inverse) cannot take place in linear-time; it takes place, from perspective of linear-time, “all at once”, instantaneously, transverse to linear-time, otherwise the set of new sets made from the set of one member chosen from each subset of set A and its iterations would be limited to a finite collection assembled in finite time by a finite machine -- which is contrary to intent and meaning of the axiom. Any acknowledgement whatsoever of the existence of m-valued logics immediately brings all of this into play. Not only is the law of distributed middle drawn into question, so is the law of non-contradiction: this was the very origin of the Polish School of Logic. Gödel ignored the existence of m-valued logics. Why did he do that?

He did it in order to protect his Umwelt, his “own world”. “Well-ordered” means ordered under the rules of ₁T₂ logic, and only under those rules -- particularly the law of non-contradiction. But the law of non-contradiction is contradicted not only time after time, not only again and again, not only over and over, not only in a particular recursive sequence that can be generalized to generalized Herbrand, Gödel, Church, Kleene, Turing, Post, Markov recursion made horribly meaningful with Tarski's logical semantics, but… uh, but… uh, but… but by m-orders of animistic classes of such “violation”. Oh, the horror, the horror! This collection of unnamable violations was what Gödel spent his life trying to parry, trying to exorcise, and it was the source of his growing paranoia. Look at his life, as Yourgrau has done (p. 92, and repeated on p. 159): “…his death, cited by his doctor as due to 'inanition' brought on by personality disorder.” Accompanied by bulimia? In all likelihood. I had a mild case of bulimia throughout the whole three years I was in the U.S. Army. This should have been anticipated because, though I didn't recognize the connection to Hamlet until later, I chose to quit college and go to Vietnam as a result of recognizing that there is “something rotten in Denmark” and if I am to understand myself I must understand this rottenness: the best way to do that is to get up close to its consequences. In so doing, however, I “made conscious” introjected elements of my Umwelt that, otherwise, would have remained tacit. These newly “made conscious” elements were anathema, but by virtue of my being an American, I could not deny them as being part of my defining characteristics. This circumstance was a chronic double-bind with associated state of ambivalence: rat in a cage damned if “to be” and damned if “not to be”. Identity dyscrasia. Autophobia. Phlegm production as stress reaction and associated bulimia is one rather mild physiological response. Inanition if it becomes intractable. Conceptual aspects of the Weltbilt (world construct) one embraces are potent elements introjected to Umwelt as “given” properties of self-definition. If conceptual aspects that are anathema cannot be rejected, spit out, projected, then there is identity disequilibrium, which, if it becomes chronic, has consequences, psychological and physiological. An enormous amount of systematic introspection is required if these issues are to be separated from work on conceptual aspects of a Weltbilt. Quite obviously, Gödel did not sufficiently engage in that sort of “inner work”. “Recognitions” are involved. What the requisite recognitions for Gödel would have been, I do not know. For me, one such, was sudden awareness of the Hamlet correspondence, and the implications of that. By choosing consciously to explore collective attributes of self-definition, I had experienced a great deal of emotion, moral angst, pangs of conscience, some near-death occasions, and so on, all of which I had taken as profoundly personal, as indicative of my unique individuality, as bespeaking existential authenticity, as signs of personal spiritual struggle and development -- only to suddenly realize, with recognition of the Hamlet correspondence, that all of this “profoundly personal” stuff was totally impersonal, stereotypic, was being caught on a runaway train barreling down the tracks, was archetypal behavior having virtually nothing to do with anything I would feel comfortable calling myself. Recognition of this was an important part of the process of coming to understand that there are orders to the very notion of what identity can be, not only choices between different identities. With that, the Umwelt was no longer so strongly wed to the Weltbilt, and I found myself comprehending and embracing certain aspects of what orders of logical-value directly imply. Gödel, clearly, did not do this.

Yourgrau (p. 132, A World Without Time) quotes Gödel as saying: “The notion of existence is one of the primitive concepts with which we must begin as given. It is the clearest concept we have.” Whoa! “Given”? Existence as mere “concept”? “Clearest” under what order of logical-value? When, by immediate sensory engagement, each and every macroscopic object can be directly observed to have as many Husserlian “horizons” (or Cubist “facets”) as the observer chooses to discover, and in all likelihood a Cantorian continuum thereof, how “clear” can the existence of this object be under any order of logical-value short of that with cardinality C? Selfsameness and constancy of the object takes a great deal of Constructivism: there is “White on White”, not only black on white and infinite shades of gray. Here, in Gödel, we have the thought of a man who, like Husserl, didn't closely read Husserl. Husserl's “ideas” were written by a man who never actually practiced the reductive phenomenology Husserl recommended. It's not about resurrecting or retrieving basic ideas; its unlearning sensory prescription, something no one has ever been paid to do. Yourgrau then adds his interpretive two cents (p. 132): “…reality as such is absolute… If a doctrine implies the opposite, it is that doctrine that has to go.” This is pure hokum, mere assertion and proclamation, the Truth with a big T revealed, Fertile-Crescent-religion fundamentalism, not even a Fertile-Crescent-religion mystical insight into, say, Kairos. Much in immediate sensory experience directly contradicts it. If you wish to call only that which is experienced by post-Renaissance Western man in the enculturated everyday normal state of consciousness employing the ₁T₂ order of logical-value to process that experience -- and experience of those non-Westerners “given” membership in the dominant culture by forced assimilation -- “existence”, fine by me, but then there is the existence of all that is not “existence” to account for. “Being”, we might call that which exists but is not in “existence”. Yourgrau (p. 133) again quotes Gödel regarding absolutes: “As a substitute for absolute space we have…” Gödel goes on to elaborate about “a certain inertial field”, “a completely free gyroscope”, and preferred reference frames that “follow the mean motion of matter”. I would point out that no matter follows the mean motion of matter, and that, therefore, there is no reference frame, let alone preferred reference frames, attached to this “matter” that does not exist. Reference frames appertain to that which actually exists, not that which “exists” heuristically, like the mean. That which is knowable under a given order of logical-value does not necessarily exist as such; that which exists as such is not necessary knowable under a given order of logical-value. There isn't even absolute existence of macroscopic objects in visual space, for there is no absolute localization in visual space, as Luneburg has demonstrated in the optics lab. Indeed, there is no visual space absolutely common to you and me standing in the same room. Visual space, Luneburg discovered, is a non-Euclidian metrical space with a limiting velocity, Lorentz contraction, and what he designated a “psychometric distance function” which varies with not well understood psychological factors. Those psychological factors are deeply involved with the order of logical-value employed. Similarly, there is no absolutely universal, worldwide, McTaggart passing “now” common to you and me. One has to assume that universal physical constants are single-valued, and therefore that the speed of light is not m-valued, let alone m-logically-valued (a very big assumption these days in face of recent experimental findings concerning the speed of light, and photons getting to point B before they leave point A), if one is to ignore time dilation relative to perception of macroscopic objects, something Luneburg knew from experiment as early as the 1940s. If you or some other person did not know about this, how can I take responsibility for that? How far away from Princeton is Columbia University? One has also to ignore the likelihood that there are m-valued absolute limiting accelerations and time rates of change of acceleration, with their associated topological transforms, transforms more complex than that of mere time dilation. We each live in our own time, subtly different from every other “own time”, just as each “own world” (Umwelt) is subtly different from every other “own world” (the differences having to do with what is and what is not psychologically introjected into the defining properties of self-identity, selfsame or not so selfsame to some degree depending on the order of logical-value employed). There is an entangled relative-state trick convex/concave superconducting “mirror” in which all the inertial “local time patterns” -- that is, the local chronotopologies (if spacetime curves, then time too must curve) -- in which all the accelerative reference frames, in which all the time-rates-of-change-of-acceleration reference frames are “reflected”, but this “mirror” is m-logically-valued and therefore cannot be related to any worldwide, linear-time, passing “now”, a “now” which is unambiguously definable only under the ₁T₂ order of logical-value where the law of non-contradiction holds sway, where instants are self-identical and thus can be absolutely distinguished one from another. The Indic “eternal now” is m-logically-valued and simply has nothing whatsoever to do with the passing “now” of linear-time (“intuitive” only under the ₁T₂ order of logical-value). And since fundamental properties of time cannot be changed independent of change in order of logical-value employed, the very notion of identity establishing the particular identity experiencing the given type of time also must change in concert: the ₁T₂-logic distinction between subject and object will be profoundly altered as the order of logical-value changes relative to the change in properties of time. This is a matter of direct sensory experience. One kind of time is most certainly no-time, as is under the requisite circumstances directly given to sensory awareness, but that does not mean there is no-time all the time, or even in that instant of linear-time deemed “now”. The “now” in the Indic “eternal now” is just a feeble attempt to communicate to a ratiocination based in a lower order of logical-value.

Time is not a dimension; it is the collection of complex-imaginary operators on an m-logically-valued hyperspace decomposing it to ponderable 3-space -- and shaping that 3-space. We call this collection of operators “time” because we experience change of space as being time-like. I have no doubt that Gödel's rotating universe exists, that Kripke's modal logics deem it a possible-world logic, just as I have no doubt there are n-existent superposed universes dictated by the simultaneous multiple solutions to the field equations of General Relativity. As to whether or not the “great acceleration” required for “time travel” is equivalent to the absolute limiting acceleration of that rotating universe, I could not say for sure -- but it seems very likely. The implications of this, however, are not a world without time; the implications are far more complex and interesting due to the topological transforms involved with second-order operator-time which operates only at the absolute limiting acceleration. These transforms involve a nesting of nests. Multiple solutions to the field equations are due to the presence of m-valued functions, just as superposition in the Schrödinger wave equation is due to the presence of m-valued functions. My contention all along has been that these m-valued functions need to be evaluated with m-valued logics. Replace the Hamiltonian operator with the temporal curl induced by 3-fold complex-imaginary operator-time quantized as Penrose twistor. In order to get quantum-gravity, plug that into the field equations of General Relativity where the time dimension has heretofore been. Then evaluate the multiple solutions to the field equations thus modified with m-valued logics by treating those multiple solutions as Regge lattices numbered with numbered Gödel numbers. Many of the notions currently associated with superstring theory and loop quantum gravity will be apparent here. This will require Musculpt as mathematical notation, the Musculpt Derek in MOON axiomatized from the point of view of ₁T₂ logic (the only order of m-valued logics wherein the notion of self-evident axioms makes any sense).

Derek, as described in MOON, actually lived on a closed time-like curve in one of Gödel's rotating universes, such curves, after all, being not too different from the event horizon of a super-large rotating black hole. Quoting MOON at length concerning many of the issues Gödel addressed (Vol. 2, pp. 666-70):

And in conversation, the words are only markers of the interpersonal energy flow. Conversationalists only say what they are-being: meaning reduced to use. Intentionality is tagged by words; intentionality is light-energy marked verbally. In most deep attention to the ambient feeling-space, he sees the feeling-tone as light energy signifying intentionality of verbal intercourse. Musculpt is in the social atmosphere: interpersonal weather. Why should he hear only the words, when he can hear-see instead the tones of pure feeling subliminally orchestrating verbalization?

Time untamed by the domesticating mind! Time in the raw, not caught on a clevis. Utsuroi, the exact moment of descent. Whoop and whirlybird free of obtruding retorts. Fine. But does that mean it cannot be numbered? Time and number: only sequence? There or there or there? This or this or this? What does your Plexiglas separation separate? Or, or… and, and. Here and here and here: hashi. That and that and that: hashi. What does your exclusion exclude? A number is not only itself. Himorogi is the place of descent, that which draws the evolute out of its cave. Number the numbering!

After all effort came to naught, when he was on the verge of giving it up, he discovered what walking meditation was for. He had been doing it and doing it and doing it, but had never really determined what he was trying to do. Accidents will happen! He made a discovery. Walking meditating to identify identification, unattach attachment from its field properties. Seeking the threshold of schizophrenia; learning that we are all always relatively schizophrenic -- the degree of relativity depending on the velocity of cognition of percepts at any given moment. Finally, he found Ksana. Finally, he saw guna entity transforming its unit of space. After years of trying not to identify, he tried prolonging the identification. In walking meditation he had simply registered identifications one after another. Then he concentrated on retrieving the captured energy. He visualized pulling back in his cathexes -- one sense modality at a time, then cross-modally. This was his format of reduction. But it did not take him very far. He had to penetrate the structure of identification itself. He knew that each identification is a psychological black hole: the awareness cannot escape. But he could not find the experiential correlate of the rotational element. The rotating solution! Time's curl, the twisting tai chi symbol, the whirling dervish. Time would slow down; time would stretch out. He could sense the lost continuity; there were gaps; but he would always slip into the next identification. How to stop at the interface?

After he had posed this problem, every time he meditated, he got motion sickness. He wanted to throw up; he did throw up. His head would spin. Dizziness was his perpetual lot. He could not sleep unless one leg hung over the edge of the bed and the foot rested flat on the floor: only this would stop the spinning. He was on a twirling disk, a spinor, a wheel of color complements he could not exit. The spokes were his identifications, and he spun with them. Time was the twistor; he knew that. He had to shift his focus, cognize the whole wheel, not just one spoke at a time. He had to accept the blur of the spinning spokes, affirm it, no longer require resolution, well-ordering. The axis of rotation a dark chamber's hole in the mind proving the READYMADE “objective” world of enculturated things a mere inverted image: samsara. And the whole problem, he discovered, was in his ears, his inner ears. It was a difficulty with sounding; sound and color. Blue: buzzzz! Red: ruuuuum! Green: grrrrrrr! Sound waves. The timbre of time: it's wave shape. Coherency was more than he could withstand. His balancing mechanisms refused to adapt, wanted the identifications, demanded to be resolved to some fundamental tone, any fundamental tone. Key signatures were his anchor on the world, the framework of his identifications. The ringing in the ears. Ringing, ringing, ringing! It was the sounds in the silence he could not abide, the hum, the deep, full-bodied hummmOOOMM. With Pascal, there was nothing that terrified him more than the “eternal silence of infinite space”.

This intention you have to build things up. Unitizing, always uniting units: redintegrating. Learn to burrow. Hollow it out. Get inside of empty. Make a gate to hold the moon. Nothing is a something you do not know.

And then he asked the right question. What is the import of the fact that the conventions of language require that the object itself -- even a linguistic one -- cannot appear in a statement, only the name or the sign of the object? “Peasantry” has three syllables, is properly written only when “peasantry” has quotation marks around it. Absolute distinction between signifier and signified is imposed on the consciousness by natural language acquisition. The call, which is the signifier, requires absolute distinction between the caller and the callee, the signified. How could language be in the absence of this convention? Could it be generative empathic: synaesthetic, eidetic? Could it be MUSCULPT? Could it be a GATE TO HOLD THE MOON?

If R_s, our universe of discourse, is the multivalued reference space and M_s a formalized language over R_s called musculpt, then we wish to ascertain the possibility, within the construct of a metatheory over M_s and R_s, of making precise the concept of validity of a semantic assertion of M_s in R_s. Is there a codifiable axiom system, A, such that the set of statements derivable from A by the rules of Post's “m-valued truth systems”, _µT_m, coincides with the set of valid statements over R_s?

We take seven undefined terms -- number, value, equal, zero, infinity, immediate successor to, hole -- and state five axioms.

The Multivalued Reference Space axiOOOMMitized (from the point of view of two-valued logic):

• A number is a value which is not in all cases equal to itself.
• Zero and infinity are both numbers.
• The immediate successor to a number is not necessarily a number (it could be a hole, which is not zero or infinity).
• One value of that immediate successor to a number which is a number is always zero or infinity or both.
• Any property belonging to any number belongs to some value of every number.

The set, S, of operational and functional symbols -- constant signs; numerical, sentential, and predicate variables -- is denumerable but not finite because M_s (by virtue of _µT_m) is a formalized language with a class of mⁿ configurations (c_m1, c_m2,…,c_mn). Each added configuration invokes additional operational and functional symbols by virtue of the changed value (identity status) signified by the audiovisual phonemes, morphemes, and functions of the M_s semiotic.

Codification of the multivalued reference space as an “as if” recursive mapping requires (the states of relative identity transparency):

• 2-valued logic (no A is not-A) >> Gödel number >> Product of successive primes raised to appropriate powers.
• 3-valued logic >> Product of successive Gödel numbers raised to appropriate powers.
• 4-valued logic >> Product of 3 successive Gödel numbers raised to appropriate powers.
• m-valued logic >> Product of m-1 successive Gödel numbers raised to appropriate powers.

The consistency and completeness of a 2-valued calculus can be absolutely demonstrated only with reference to a 3-valued logic; that of a 3-valued calculus, only with reference to a 4-valued logic, et cetera. What happens when the order of value of the logic is Aleph-null and Aleph-1 (the numbering of orders of value includes more than merely the natural numbers)? Two distinct varieties of reentry occur. Follows from Aleph-null absolute transparency of opposites (A is absolutely not-A). Follows from Aleph-1 self-production of identity: hyparxis. The various properties of self-organization (which are more complex than self-production) follow from higher orders of infinity. Autopoiesis is an essential feature of the Cantor universe.

Church's hypothesis on calculability (calculable if and only if recursive) is valid only for number-theoretic functions that are well-determinable on the basis of the two-value principle of classical logic: 'cause dese sorts a number-theoretical functions is on'y a tiny piece a all da number-functions dere are by da “2-value,…,m-value principle” a logic. Recursive -- Herbrand, Gödel, and Kleene's calculus of equations; Turing's machine; Dr. Church's calculus of lambda-conversion; the algorithms of Post and Markov: oh, da wonderful Thirties! how dey did deir best ta hide from da discoveries a da Roaring Twenties (just think of the kind of computers we'd have today if Turing hadn't subsequently been mentally raped at Bletchley Park!) -- ain't no panacea. Even Tarski's logical sematics does not forthrightly deal with the multivalue.

There is no such thing as an absolute logical fallacy. A fallacy in a given order of logical value is a tautology in some other order. There might be meta-fallacies -- the invariants of the class of all fallacies existing in every given order of value -- or meta-meta-fallacies, their invariants. But even that must be doubted. What order of value is the only order of value permissible for deducing such invariants?… Each order of value is permitted for some form of use. With regard to fundamental questions like generalized invariants for the class of all object systems (subjective, objective, and the m-states betwixt 'n baatween), for instance, all orders of logical value are permitted.

Don't cradle your head! This is no occasion for catatonic response. Four-eighteen. Four-eighteen. Breathe! Walk and Breathe. Four-eighteen. Anapana-sati. The satin-flow essence which you breathe. Kayanupassana. Vedananupassana. Cittanupassana. Dhammanupassana. Insight meditation. It's constellated now; it will KILL you unless you live it. Oh, how many diseases it knows how to approximate!

What kind of state is this he is in? It has been going on now for days and days, ever since the seizure. Ah! Affektepilepsie, no doubt: convulsions that psychogenic factors precipitate in various obsessive disorders. But he is deeply inner-separated, continually, with no effort whatsoever. What joy! And yet, very scary. The head is clear, crystal clear -- opened upward. And there is no tension. He's never been so relaxed in his life. And lithe! He feels so elegant of movement, cat-like: every wave of the arm or kick of the foot sets up a ripple in the satin-flow. A crane causing not a ripple on the waters, thus is he carried by the satin-flow! What is this satin-flow? It is like there is some kind of fluid in the air, some kind of anti-gravity fluid. Biological superconduction? It must be something time has done… or the light. Everything is slowed-down smooth-soft. Being in a womb, only here it is the womb of time, time experienced through a microscope. Time is the mother. Has a magic circle been drawn around him? Time has its own amnion? Is this satin-flow the amnionic fluid of time? Is this a time envelope he is in, some sort of temporal bioplasma bottle induced by the light and the time-warp? It's as if the satin-flow were a protective agency. Is this state what is called a “state of grace”? He feels protected, his every movement softened and guided. Loved by life! Cradled by time! Big smiles, babies laugh, happy hello, birds come up close, dogs follow: extraordinary gush of happy friendliness. Yet, he has an uneasy sensation, a fear. He knows he is on the edge of something very deep, deeper than he can handle with his present knowledge. The abyss is dangerous. Somehow he has got to skirt the edge, return later, after he has learned more of what it's all about. How can these things have happened? What do they mean? How can a seizure throw him into an altered state that lasts over a week?

One might even benefit by consideration of such issues in thinking about the possibility of implementing m-logically-valued monetary units.

Moral behavior is a question of quality of percepts, not conscience, will, moral intuition, and the like. There is no will that is not willful, no conscience that is not informed by ideology. Moral imperative is introjection to Umwelt of the lemmas of “dominance through specialization and resultant role stratification” codified in superego injunctions announced by the projected personified godhead: the introjection and projection issues out of failure to perceive identity transparency, a failure for lack of capacity to process outside of the ₁T₂ order of m-valued logics. Action in the world is action in the world, not action in not-the-world. One acts in relation to percepts received, their concatenations and derivatives; not in relation to percepts not received, concatenations never elaborated, derivatives never derived. If there is direct immediate perception of m-logically-valued identity transparency, concatenations thereof will spontaneously elaborate and directly inform behavior; absent such immediate perception, this will not occur. If one cannot perceive an “other” as other-than-oneself, wherefore doth one kill? Murder is suicide; suicide, murder: this can occur only through a deterioration in quality of percepts. And if life (mineral, plant, animal) is taken as food, this taking is a Eucharistic self-eating which cannot be conceived as non-sacred. I am the land, the lion taken, the plant consumed, the salt pulverized. If the lion takes me, it takes itself. Regaining the capacity to fully perceive concepts and to quit understanding objects is the road to collective morality. As for The Republic, it is self-fulfilling in so far as the capacity to perceive is progressively taken away by its prescriptive impositions, impositions IMPOSING a very low pleasure tolerance threshold and a very high collective pain tolerance threshold. Physiology of human organism has lost virtually all ability to withstand the pleasure assault mounted by collective coherency.

I am not sure that the question “When was the capacity to fully perceive concepts lost?” is an actual question. In an m-valued universe, without simple identity, sans simple locality, absent an objective-subjective distinction to apply to the question of objectivity or non-objectivity of linear-time reference, what actuality is to be accorded dating schemes or the notion of "no contact"? Roger Penrose believes in OR (objective reduction) and quasi-believes in a “classical limit”. Reduction is understood by him with a ₁T₂ logic. If there is no classical limit and the reduction involves collapse of an m-valued wave-function on an n-dimensional manifold under m-valued logics, however, (ontologically and logically) “then” the “objectivity” of the reduction only firms up as the objective-subjective distinction firms up exponentially as the ₁T₂ order of logical-value is more and more closely approached (a residual of higher orders is always there subliminally). Notice that Penrose's objective reduction is the inverse of Husserl's transcendental reduction (involution/devolution: this, not being pantheism, the best book on the subject is Noel Winter's Pan Gnosticism). For most of the Penrose and Husserl reductive processes -- transverse to linear-time -- the objective-subjective distinction has only the most fleeting of definability. Date denotation (contrary to Russell) is a cultural lag, an artifact of spoken-language acquisition, an albatross become a hangman's necktie as the language is more and more roped to the ₁T₂ order of logical-value; some other form of numbering will replace it, a numbering, perhaps, where there are orders of non-selfsameness to the numbers employed (so as to match the exponential firming up of the distinctions involved in objective reduction and the spontaneous fusion involved in transcendental reduction). Issues of dating aside, Stan Gooch (Cities of Dreams: When Women Ruled the Earth, Aulis, 2001 edition of the 1989 original) gives us some feeling for the issue of what was involved in loss of the capacity to perceive concepts (the regaining of which, implementation of m-logically-valued monetary units would facilitate; as well as learning DolphinSpeak: dolphins and whales, with whom we once Musculpted, have apparently, in spite of all that has been done to them, retained this capacity to far greater degree than other Earthlings). Likely this loss and the associated brain damage did not occur instantaneously relative to a linear-time reference. Quoting Gooch page 23:

This remarkable feature of language -- and one that is almost never discussed, namely that the further back in time we trace it, the more complex, and not the simpler it becomes -- is not at all what we expect. Of course, once long, long ago language must initially have been fairly simple.

Gooch's last sentence I disagree with. It assumes recursive generation of language and tacitly rules out generation by decompositional involutes from m-logically-valued Musculpt. Given that Aymara, the pre-Inca language of the Andes, has now been demonstrated to be based on a 3-valued logic, there is some direct hard evidence for my long-held supposition from less hard evidence that the “earlier” the language in its decompositional involution from Musculpt, the higher valued the logic the language is based upon. How recursive extension in linear-time relates to involution in decomposition (objective reduction) is a very interesting question involving how the topological operations of temporal curl (quantized as Penrose's twistor) relate to m-valued logics, a subject best pursued in Musculpt itself (and a question surely having to do with the “dream-time” nature of Aboriginal “songlines”, which are the hypercomplex reverberations of the complex line of the Riemann Hypothesis -- concepts perceived, not understood). The higher the order of logical-value employed to process perception of concepts, the more the object-subject distinction does not exist, the more objects cannot be understood, and the more they dissolve into a cloud of unknowing. At m-logically-valued midlevels, it is very likely that Musculpt is the landscape; the landscape, Musculpt (an M^nk ARTiculation space).

Regarding your question as to the equivalency principle associated with time rate of change of acceleration, I would offer the following equation as making a statement of what I believe to be the case. If mass and energy impart curvature to space-time under c², then

₁T₅ = S³c³

where T denotes operator-time, S indicates space, and c signifies the speed of light in vacuum. S³ is a metric 3-space like that of the Einstein Universe. ₁T₅ is chronotopology, order 1,5. Chronotopological order is determined by the order of logical-value mapped on the space establishing the degree of holographic identity transparency (i.e., object-object entanglement) permitted. Under c², subscript 5 would become 4; under c, subscript 3 (prescribing on flat space a ₁T₂ calculus consistent under a ₁T₃ logic). In the general case

₁T_m = M^nkcⁿ

where M denotes a hypercomplex manifold, its superscript n signifies the number of Riemann surfaces in its universal covering, and k indicates the number of bridges (determining genus). There is no such thing as being in space; there is being of space. There is no trajectory through space; movement is a shaping of space. Operator-time is the shaper. Space-shape can be converted to chronotopology; chronotopology can be converted to space-shape. These conversions are supraordinal to and incorporate mass-energy conversions; they are logical operations which transform the nature of permitted identity (and thereby the degree of entanglement). According to this conception, the measurement problem can only be addressed in quantum gravity if the subscript to the left-hand side of T is allowed to take on µ values (such that to the left of the equals sign we then have _µT_m); this would invoke a mirroring counter-hypercomplex manifold, permitting consideration of the object and its reflection or the subject and its reflection (i.e., subject-object entanglement or full-blown identity transparency). The general case under quantum-gravity measurement would thus be

_µT_m = _nkM^nkcⁿ

where the n and k subscripts indicate presence of a mirroring counterspace and its counter-hypercomplex manifold. The T operator employed here is the T operator of CPT invariance, not interpreted, however, in terms of probability waves under only a ₁T₂ logic, but in terms of relative-state under _µT_m-orders of logical-value. Perhaps Emil Post, in choosing T to notate his logics, subliminally grasped the relation between time and logic.

Think of it like this. The origin of the universe, as we “intuitively” experience it in the normative state of consciousness looking at objects and instruments, the reason for the Big Bang, is the placement of a filter on Schrödinger's time-independent wave equation, a filter that fixes the scale reference and thus determines that which can be considered and that which cannot. The act of such filtering-scaling, which chooses certain superpositions and disallows others, is a logic-operation imposing not only single-valuedness on universal constants but also specific single values. Anthropic principle. Everything else follows from that act of filtering-scaling. This is exactly what Charney did to the primitive equation set of atmospheric science: he scaled it in such a fashion as to filter out acoustically-modified gravity-wave modes, those coherent m-valued accelerational modes coupling scales of wave motion into superpositions he deemed to be “noise”. Doing this in 1948, he created in atmospheric science what would later be created in elementary particle physics and cosmology under the name of “Higgs field”. This act by Charney kept atmospheric physics a “classical domain” and insured that severe local storms would remain random thermal processes recursively generated from microscale motions. No involutory cascade of enfolded-to-unfolded big whorls generating smaller whorls generating smaller whorls and so on to infinity, which is what Richardson had envisioned, his total unfiltered primitive equation set being in many ways equivalent to Schrödinger's time-independent wave equation. Charney introduced symmetry-breaking decoherence into Richardson's symmetry-maintaining coherent equation set. Moreover, this fixing of the scale of reference veiled double-helical feeder-band air parcel propagation in tornado genesis and the operator-time related regulatory activity involved. This operator-time regulatory activity is multiscale in character, not only across the full spectrum of atmospheric wave motions, but across the full spectrum of scales in the purview of physics.

Both electrons and air parcels, at the crest of the wave, instantaneously travel at the limiting velocity of their respective domains. Water, too, as Victor P. Starr well understood with his “The Hydrodynamical Analogy to E = mc²”. No linear-time, no mass, no length in the direction of motion. Massless: no-time, no-space, time ultimately indistinguishable from space and penultimately the two convertible. Each field of physics, however, has found its own way to impose filtering-scaling such that full import of this is removed from view. Gödel universes are disallowed by filtering-scaling. The electron treated in linear-time travels at far less than the limiting velocity. Time lapsed, and smoothed out of Feynman diagram representational mode, zig-zag components of the electron in motion form an alpha helix of infinite superposition: left-hand rule, right-hand rule, left-hand rule, right-hand rule, left-hand rule… Dirac's “Zitterbewegung”. Real Lee-Yang-Wu asymmetric mirror imposed by time lapse, by operator-time, the coupling constant governing rate of “reflection” between components of the involved Dirac spinor, this constant strangely enough being written M. Scaling time-step, this scaled time-step being treated as a field, Higgs field. Mass -- inertia, therefore -- is imposed by operator-time, operator-time in our view being a logic-operator defining the very notion of identity permissible in the space articulated: imposition of classes of asymmetry. Time operates on space to generate form. The electron parcel of superconductivity is a double helix of infinite sums superposed coherently. The molecular-scale double helix of DNA is time-lapsed electron-parcel writ large. This parcel's rate of temperature oscillation, which we call the “intracellular Zeitgeber”, is set by the minimum time for spontaneous localization, i.e., coupling coupling constants of the coupling constant treated as Higgs field. Higgs field of consensus physics is of constant value because only one chronotopology, one order of logical-value, is permitted to view by the act of choosing the fixed-scale reference necessary to disallow those superpositions not consonant with what we “intuitively” experience in the normative state of consciousness looking at objects and instruments (act of measurement as act of choice, as collective occasion of experience of choice; anthropic principle as imposition upon the population corpus of the normative state of consciousness under ₁T₂ logic). Environmental forcing of the Zeitgeber in DNA superconductivity, however, is based upon treating the p-electron parcel as a “perfect absorber and emitter”, as a blackbody, as a time-independent Schrödinger oscillator. Setting and resetting value of the “coupling constant” of the “minimum time” of the “intracellular Zeitgeber” is imposed by impinging ambient radiation, the Maxwellian properties of which -- i.e., Maxwell's “demon” as operator-time -- choose between superpositions, all of which are permitted under _µT_m. Choice in order of logical-value is choice in chronotopology is choice in permitted superpositions is choice in… “Reading” under _µT_m is reading M-verse as The Book of Changes, not a book of chances.

It was during the late-1970s as the superconductant DNA paper was being written that I began to regard full-blown animistic identity transparency -- of which I had received a taste as a child squatting on paddy dikes in rural Japan -- as a lived form of GUTS. Identity transparency is loss of distinction, loss of asymmetry: total balance regained; authentic identity -- solipsistic “Real-I”, there being only One-Real-I -- regained! Quoting “Object and Subject” posted on the MOON website:

On the outskirts of Bangkok there is on old house, a house made of teak in Thai style with multiple levels, multiple terraces, many roofs, separate structures interconnected by ramps of the inner garden hanging pomelo and papaya and plum and persimmon, durian, mango and milk-breast fruit. Near the door to the highest sleeping pavilion is a large pierced carving -- 3 by 4 meters -- forming the frontal wall. One will walk past this layered cut-out relief dozens of times, momentarily stopping perhaps, registering only a confusion of abstractions, an entanglement of all shapes blended into one, wavering, precarious, a collection of aspects elusive and affording no hold, until suddenly -- object as subject! -- the image appears in awareness: A giant cicada superimposed upon a farmer squatting on a rice paddy dike, whose knees and thighs are the shoulders and torsos of two straining water buffalo surging forward at the viewing subject out of a valley of rice rimmed in circling hills stitched of bristling undergrowth. But the figures will not remain resolved! They become confused together borrowing mutually their qualities, appearing as an inextricable entanglement of reciprocal influences, persons and things in a perpetual state of instability confused together borrowing mutually their qualities, confused together, confused until suddenly -- object in subject! -- reappears the confusion of abstractions, all shapes blended into one, wavering, precarious, a collection of aspects: {object : subject :: subject : object, object : subject :: subject : object…n}. Left-hand path or right-hand path? that is the question.

Living “Zitterbewegung” at the de Broglie frequency! Becoming one's own electron. Slipping into reflection asymmetry. Primed index, unprimed index. Negative helicity, positive helicity. Left-hand path, right-hand path. Zig-zag, Zig-zag, Zig-zag, Zig-zag, Zig-zag, Zig-zag… Massless zig; massless zag: speed of light in flip-flop reversals. Light that way? Light this way? Light in light of ₁T₂ logic? Which light, eh what? Which order of logical-value in pregeometry as calculus of propositions? Ah, but from the consensuated rest frame -- Is this frame absolute space, average mass distribution, absolute spacetime? Etheric double resurrected in Higgs field? Or was Leibniz right: absolutely relative is the only absolute (once existence of m-valued logics is admitted)? -- coupling temporal spin components (negative spin one-half, positive spin one-half: time spinning that way and this way) via rest mass as a single-valued universal physical constant: so many binary zigs and zags out of a single-valued logic! Transfinite sum of finite temporal-spin-component paths (of varying lengths): an authentic Schrödinger superposition. Once the rest frame is consensuated, however, direction of light's temporal spin relative to that rest frame (whatever it might be) does not change: asymmetry preferred by the collectivity in its collective occasions of experience. Mass coupler as inverse of the average flip-flop rate in linear-time's binary spin directions. This single-valued coupling constant treated as a field: Higgs field.

What is “electron temperature enhancement”, anyway? It can't be random molecular motion, as temperature was traditionally defined. What, anyway, is temperature? Change in value (phase transition) of the strange capital M (times 2^-1/2; not 2^nk like in ₁T₂-logical complexity theory; and most certainly not the M^nk associated with m-logically-valued operator-time) as mass-coupler coupling constant setting the flip-flop rate of temporal spin, of time's curl, shall we say? Here we have the main issue raised by the senior reviewer of our superconductant DNA paper. What does it mean to speak of temperature oscillations of electron parcels treated as the bottom line on biological Zeitgebers? This bottom “line” being modulated by impinging environmental electromagnetic field waves the complementary particles of which zig-zag their Zitterbewegung (like goldfish in Gion) at the de Broglie frequency (or, under m-valued logics, the de Broglie frequencies). We treated the subject in the matrices of the appendix to the superconductant DNA paper relative to the notion of “temporal curl”. Our theory was that the “natural frequencies” (frequency response windows) of histological types of DNA vary with mass (string length, intercalations, pendants, resultant loop configurations, and so on) helix-coil transiting at various velocities, accelerations, and time rates of change of acceleration. This canonical frequency being inversely related to the minimum time for spontaneous localization relative to the rest frame. Alpha helix of zig-zags divided against its etheric double in Higgs field (upscale analogue of Pauli spinor become Dirac spinor) -- the zigs and zags being temporal curl frozen into ₁T₂-logical shape by reference to the rest frame. Or so it appears to observers imagining themselves on the rest frame and employing a ₁T₂ logic to pattern what they see coming back at them in crystallographic experiments. What would temperature be if the mass of massless temporal-spin components of electron did not set spin flip-flop rate of time, but time's curl set mass of the massless? Temperature would be the spin component of operator-time! And a temperature field -- equivalent temperature, equivalent potential temperature, or otherwise -- would be resonance map, a long-range phase-coherency map, of such spin. Written all over MOON! And if operator-time is the set of all logical operations on the m-logically-valued reference space, then Higgs field phase transitions would be logical operations modifying time independency of the Schrödinger equation, nature having available to it the full _µT_m complement of such operators. Higgs phase transitions occur at critical temperatures, and temperature does have something to do with the thermodynamic definition of irreversible ₁T₂-logical linear-time. Crazy or not is the time in your logic.

What is spinning here is the speed itself, the speed as such -- actually, a limiting speed. Time differentiation of time -- in the limit. There is no instantaneous mass and no instantaneous length in the direction of propagation. That direction doesn't exist! There is no-time at this spin-moment. Speed as such flip-flops in spin component. Identity comes only with choice to reference the rest frame. What does it mean for a limiting velocity to spin? It means spin in time, not in space. Temporal curl as opposed to spatial curl: a gradient in time, not in space. Treating angular momentum cascade by exponentiating 2-spinor indices through complex m-valued 2p rotation at the limiting velocity is NOT simply to treat field-coupled sources and sinks as transposed del-operator gradients: spatial curl. The Lie algebra here is for temporal curl, not spatial curl. The twistor is the quantization of the temporal curl! At the limiting velocity, the Pauli matrices become complex to their own complexity: hypercomplex numbers are required; quaternions are not enough. That being so, just think what it means for a limiting acceleration as such to spin, for a limiting time rate of change of acceleration as such to spin! Time operates only in the limit. 2p rotation is not only m-valued; it is m-logically-valued. No-mind is not absence of mind; it is presence of the multivalue! What does this mean for p-electron parcels of superconductant DNA? What does this mean for the information content of the coherent quadripolar waves generated by superconductant DNA during helix-coil transition nucleotide-pair transcription? Thing is, this wasn't worked out in relation to electron parcels of DNA, but in relation to helix-coiling air parcels in tornado genesis. The atmospheric analogue to Maxwell's equations. This was the foundational concept of the cascade theory of tornado genesis. As Doug Paine said in the acknowledgements to the paper on superconductant exchange of hydrothermodynamic properties in Earth's atmosphere:

Anton Chaplin, a co-graduate student enrolled in Dr. John Dutton's radiation course, did a term project in which he mathematically referenced an air parcel to a temporal, as opposed to a spatial, level. The last decade for the first author has been spent in pursuit of the implications of this statement.

This was the late-1960s at Pennsylvania State University. By the mid-'70s tornado outbreaks were being accurately predicted on a 1-km grid 12 hours in advance using historical data sets and NASA's then-biggest mainframes. By the late-'70s rough hurricane landfalls were being predicted months in advance. By the very early-'80s, the fundamental concepts regarding complex angular momentum cascade (another way to say “temporal curl”) were being applied to solar-terrestrial interactions and the substance of everything noted in the article you sent concerning a recent international conference held at Exeter on climate shift dynamics (“Slouching Towards Disaster” by Michael McCarthy, The Independent, February 12, 2005) was being predicted. Twenty-five years ago. Cassandra is never welcomed, let alone embraced. During the period, this body of theory and experiment was beaten down, quartered, trampled into the ground. Who involved survived fully intact? Nowadays, everybody seems to have embraced the hundred-year window of opportunity to handle global warming, oil peak crisis, and so on. But the models have been filtered since the late-1940s! The m-valued modes have been concealed. Noise, I tell you, nothing but noise. So the window of opportunity is likely out the window. Shorter or longer, who could possibly know? Long before the term “cold fusion” was coined, there seemed little doubt some such process transpires in tornadoes in association with “superconductant exchange of hydrothermodynamic properties”. Entertain expectations to solve clean energy without nature providing this solution, do you? Has this likelihood been assiduously studied over the past quarter century? Not to my knowledge. Sitting on their thumbs all this ₁T₂-logical linear-time and now people are ready to lament (quoting the conclusion to Michael McCarthy's article): “The earth is finished”.

Relating what I have to say to contemporary consensus theory could go on and on, which may not be appropriate here, taking us away, as it does, from the designated topic of this website. But, like the heresiarch, let's continue for a bit. From _µT_m, there is no such thing as a cosmic horizon and no non-communicating regions of the universe, just as, under _µT_m, there is no such thing as branches of the universal wave-function being unaware of one another due to schizophrenogenic “lose of time” under thermodynamic constraints of the Second Law. Like celebrity super-cool personality inflation by accelerated expansion of the ego-sphere, the universe explodes through the boundary between what-is and what-is-not set by the absolute limiting velocity. This new inflationary model of the universe is a collective psychological projection (anthropic choice as collective occasion of experience). The super-egos of the scientific sphere are only one NSF grant away from the final theory, aren't they? I understand the distinction between movement through space and expansion-contraction of space-itself. Nonetheless, not believing in the possibility of movement through space, I cannot entertain the notion of superluminal expansion of space-itself. All movement is change of space-shape. So called movement through space is and/or/plus/minus/times… expansion-contraction-twisting-reconnecting-disorientablizing… space-itself. Matter is no-thing given shape; no-thing reshaped is movement of matter. Operator-time is the shaper/re-shaper. Cosmic horizons and non-communicating regions require simple-identity and localizability of spatial primitive: otherwise, there is no scale factor definable relative to a rest frame. Hereaways not really hereabouts. Points, lines, planes, volumes, or polytopes as spatial primitive, no matter; each such selfsame primitive presupposes a ₁T₂ logic with which to establish its absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct identity: changing the spatial primitive presents no possibility of actually solving the unification problem. Mass-energy conversion is explicate to the time-space conversion implicate. Heisenberg uncertainty relative to particle physics (position, momentum) is the tip of the iceberg of skew-parallelism; Heisenberg uncertainty relative to fields (value, time rate of change of value) is the tip of the iceberg of skew-perpendicularity. Both of these icebergs relate to General Relativity. It is not a matter of quantizing the gravitational field or relativizing the quantum of action; it is a matter of assimilating both to _µT_m logics. The m-valued solutions to Schrödinger's equation and the m-valued solutions to Einstein's gravitational field equations are shadows of _µT_m logics. This is the foremost common feature to quantum mechanics and relativity physics. But authentic explorations of this will not picture a universe supportive of ego-sphere experience in the normal state of consciousness. Universal physical constants become m-valued and the classical limit simply disappears: the critical issues are at issue everywhere-everytime, even in dynamical meteorology. The better choice is McCarthy's “The earth is finished” or the current Astronomer Royal's Our Final Hour (Sir Martin Rees, Basic Books, 2003). Know it or not, like it or not, admit it or not, like Samson, we have chosen to pull the temple down upon ourselves rather than sacrifice ego-sphere inflation.

Whooooooa! This really is getting well away from m-logically-valued monetary units -- or so it would appear. Predictability of tornado outbreaks via the energy-momentum cascade model broke down below the 1-km grid length and corresponding time-step ((this fact may be of importance to the theory of optimum currency areas relative to prevailing transaction times) just as the VCI, the Viet Cong [political] Infrastructure, that is, adduced a similar logic in making its ongoing boundary changes, which is not so strange when you think of multi-hop networks and the freedom-to-choose granted by the background independence involved in diffeomorphism invariance: the Confucian Northern bo doi hated this, just hated it, and eradicated the scofflaw with the Tet-'68 purge of the animistic-Taoist Southern VCI, whereas it appears tribalism of Al Qaeda & Associates has fully embraced it)). Everything stated hereinafter about this subject has to be regarded my personal speculation; its absurdity cannot be imputed to anyone else involved with the cascade theory computer model of tornado genesis or its underlying physics (I first met up with this model and physics at the last major Velikovsky conference held at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario -- which, as you quite likely will suppose, may have irreparably damaged my brain). Just as a relativistic absolute limiting velocity for atmospheric dynamics had been identified (early-'70s) -- the wave-trace velocity of those hydrothermodynamic waves accomplishing information transfer with perfect efficiency -- so, it seems to me, the above-noted breakdown indicates the presence of atmospheric Heisenberg uncertainty at the previously stated breakdown grid length and time-step (scaled Planck length and Planck time). If all universal physical constants are m-valued under _µT_m logics (not simply single-valued; not merely fields) and intervals between those values are in prime number distribution (as Alexander Karpenko's functionals between prime numbers and multivalued logics suggest, and which the Riemann hypothesis may shed light upon), then there will be scaled analogues to Einstein time dilation, Lorentz contraction, Heisenberg uncertainty, and other relativistic-quantum properties at grid lengths and time-steps indicated by these m-values of the universal physical constants. Luneburg, in the optics lab at Columbia University, experimentally demonstrated this to be the case relative to binocular visual space. A few years later, Victor P. Starr provided a model applicable to hydrodynamics. Along with the atmospheric absolute limiting velocity, three such had thus been identified and speculation in the late-'70s was for a natural log distribution of the m-values (as opposed to, say, a ₁T₂ linear-time related hydrogen atom energy-level distribution). The limiting velocity being a factor in definition of the Planck length, here was a late-'70s anticipation of loop quantum gravity -- with, however, much greater topological complexity clearly implied. Synoptically speaking, this hierarchy of relative absolute limits means spacetime lamination into LSTDs (limited spactime domains, as they were called in the late-70s) or, alternatively, spatial lamination under 3-fold complex-imaginary operator-time, the linear-time associated with ponderable 3-space -- given time-with-a-big-T is change of space-shape (including connectivity), not mere curvature under the influence of matter -- being “demergent” as decompositional involute of the MVRS, i.e., the m-logically-valued reference space (n-dimensional Hilbert space under multivalued logics: the set of all sets of Hilbert spaces that are not members of themselves, wherein A is absolutely not-A under _µT_m without law of non-contradiction no less than without law of distributed middle: “bare” Hilbert space, not “dressed” Hilbert space). Absence of a time variable in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which has spun off loop quantum gravity, would seem compatible with this notion. The ponderable spacetime of relativity theory “demerges” out of the hyperspace of quantum mechanics and this hyperspace “remerges” into the ponderable spacetime in the non-orientable fashion of a Klein bottle (considering the counterspace, counter-hypercomplex numbers, and counter-temporal operations associated with the measurement problem: a Klein bottle with handles, the handle re-entries being naked [i.e., time-like, actually twistor-as-quantization-of-the-temporal-curl-like] singularities). A background-independent diffeomorphism-invariant dynamical geometry underpinned by a pregeometry with logical-value (not truth-value), order _µT_m, not only removes the “classical limit”, the decompositional involute yielding its Maya-appearance/Plato-shadow illustrates how classical reality “demerges” from “quantum spacetime” (actually something of a misnomer, full-fledged time-with-a-big-T being an active topological operator, not a mere dimension, no matter how “imaginary” the big-T might be). If you have trouble with this, I would suggest that a virtual reality flight simulator is standard issue item with each incarnation, even if largely ignored. But since there are scaled absolute limits (relative to m-laminates) there are microphysical analogues of macro-properties (non-orientability in sources and sinks) manifest on every one of the m-laminates (each of which can be considered a spin-network-mapped-and-bridged Riemann surface, the collection of which constitutes the universal covering surface treated as an m-logically-valued n-dimensional Regge lattice, the nodal points of which are bone-connected zero-branes). Point, line, plane, volume, or polytope as spatial primitive, the resultant whatnot is all the same to me, logical order _µT_m.

According to this absurd speculation -- absolutely absurd under only a ₁T₂ logic -- one does not have to deconstruct the whole big-banging universe to study this. One simply looks at an effect simultaneously manifest in corresponding domain structures on three of the m-laminates: Casimir effect in electron parcel of superconductivity; in superconductant core of DNA; and in plasma bottle of tornadic vortex treated as black hole computer (as the tornado was treated by the cascade model -- “species” or “analogue” of gravitational collapse, as it was at the time articulated -- and as was scathingly sneered at by Stephen Hawking's graduate student spokesperson when tendered to Hawking by me in the late-'70s, following several interactions on the subject with John A. Wheeler, and prior to several failed attempts to raise the issue with Roger Penrose: the whole notion is simply absurd). Parcel Zitterbewegung-dual; double helix; evoluting-devoluting vortex: pushing out Higgs field; pushing out structured water; pushing out every last finite (particulate). Fractalization of space under temporal operations at the appearance of infinity and/or zero (Which class of infinities? Which set of zeros?). Laminates not like those in a piece of plywood. Because the speed of light is m-valued and consequently Planck's length is m-valued, these laminates are a non-orientable fractal nesting: far enough into the fractal laminate is out upon the integral dimension turned back upon and in. Temporal curl, in the mth case, turns back upon and in. Matter may curve spacetime across the breadth of any given laminate, but time operates topologically only in the limit where divergence always is now (the “eternal now” of _µT_m Kala, not the “passing now” of ₁T₂ linear-time). Appearance of divergence means geometrical-topological (in the simplest case, change of connectivity) transformation under temporal curl as m-logically-valued logical operator. Probabilities are not calculated; probability amplitude is replaced by order of logical-value. In the cascade computer model of tornado genesis, read-out of divergence was read-in as initialization of background independence: a relative-absolute laminate boundary had been attained, the boundary values transcended, and a new loop of the spiral was entered through an imaginary dimension via mediation of the temporal curl. Renormalization would have hidden the whole repeated nested bijective mapping: “simultaneous” involutive and devolutive cascade processes. Only in “Kala's now” on the MVRS is there “renormalization”. Anthropic renormalization upon a consensuated rest frame is personality inflation to cosmic proportions! Good physicists, being, for the most part, good-citizen advocates of the prerogative of the nation-state, and having rejected Schrödinger's time-independent sexual Tantra, naturally enough prefer “dressed” electrons over those “bare”. This is because of the infinitudes involved, those infinitudes that so terrified Pietist Blaise Pascal as he contemplated the Book of Nature. Moreover, these physicists want asymmetry in order to get the simple-identity their order of logical-value demands; while they need symmetry so one divergence can cancel another divergence. No matter what laminate, all the “problems” with Heisenberg uncertainty come at very small time-step and the shortest of short grid length (relative to the given m-values of the universal physical constants apropos of the laminate in question). In trying to comprehend the context of my being-ness, I am profoundly uninterested in the successful predictions of Newtonian, quantum, and relativity physics, as I am aware, and certainly not all too aware, of the fact that confirmation of these predictions has until this very day been with respect to but a single order of logical-value out of an infinity of infinities of such orders, ₁T₂ out of _µT_m. Therefore, structuring theories so as to preserve these predictive successes, while relegating any “new” features to limiting cases can only be viewed as paranoia in defense of ₁T₂ logic and its myriad proscriptions upon what is and what is not: let the most accurate predictions ever achieved ossify under the ₁T₂ order where they belong. My existence in the life-world may be so proscribed by the coercions of consensual processes, but there is all manner of clear indication that my being-ness is not so proscribed. The work indicated is not to be done in the prevailing notation within the existing institutions; it is to be done in Musculpt relative to implementation of m-logically-valued monetary units as the basis of a quantum-relativistic self-organizing post-Bretton-Woods system. Were it done within the existing institutions in the prevailing notation, this would mean reading DNA fingerprints from a satellite and right now, today, targeting that fingerprint from a drone; tomorrow, targeting stigmatized genomic sub-classes via ground-based or severe-local-storm-based high-energy lasers/particle-beams and hot-aurora star-wars-type magnetic mirrors. Among other things. Though the human species probably cannot solve its clean energy problem independent of further insight into these areas, the prevailing institutional base and the psychopathology governing its behaviors will not permit a happy outcome: such is the nature of the double-bind mirroring the “double” characteristic of the three cases referred to above. Indeed, it is impossible to separate institutional psychopathology from the scientific embodiment thereof: renormalization; filtering-scaling; proscription of all but ₁T₂ logic, and so on.

Were my head bigger, I might have a chance to make a dent in the wall of yellow fire brick. Looked at in the usual way, what I am saying is awfully elementary: none of the details that emerge when a thousand institutionally-affiliated scientists decide to work in an area (because guvment and megacorp decide to fund). Obvious, even. For instance, the absolute limiting time rate of change of acceleration, c³, appears in the very definition of the Planck length. That length shorter than which superstring theory arose to exorcise. Just as the Copenhagen interpretation was the Witch Bull of the 20th century! Hercules proscribing hydra-headed m-valued logics, “multifarious evil not to be overcome in a single effort”. The Thirteenth labor of Hercules. Flight from woman. Recoil from that psychological black hole. Impuissance before her mastery of identity transparency at orgasm. Black hole with hair, the Gorgon's entanglement. Spooky action. Ever wonder about the subliminal levers on changing pubic fashions? Does bald say something about the psychopathology of everyday life? And why is it that Neanderthal throwbacks dying their black hair red have little interest in a bald nether region, that dark counterspace? Singularities naked or not be damned! Lay lady lay across MY big brass bed: your mastery may be in letting go, but I am here to show you what being in CONTROL is all about. I have some string here, Little Red Riding Hood, all the better with which to bind you. Another chauvinist Cro-Magnon pig! What could this apparitional appearance of c³ possibly mean? Oh, God, not macroscale skew-perpendicularity. Not macroscale skew-parallelism. That pagan peril, again! Heisenberg uncertainty, yes, say the supersymmetric problem-here canceling problem-there theorists, but only so much of it, for God's sake; one just gets sick to death of the uncertainty, no decent insurance agent to be found, this having to live in a universe without cradle-to-grave, bang-to-burp security. Pathological phenomenon, it is; like the tornadic vortex, simply pathological. As if someone up there just couldn't resist reminding us of Cartesian vortex inside of vortex inside of vortex. Quantum this; quantum that. Up to here, I say! Infinities, zero-point this and zero-point that, UNCONTROLLABLE quantum fluctuations: is there no end of threats to ego autonomy? Of course there is. Of course there is. Eureka! Get rid of the arbitrarily short. Not only a classical limit, a limit wherever we need one. Eureka! Proscription on permissible geometry. The heck with c³ reentries: hyparxis be deviled. Scaling-filtering to the rescue! P-adic truncation, or what? Who the hell did Cantor think he was anyway, acting like just one more Swabian Pietist? A reincarnation of Swedenborg? with his Outlines of a Philosophical Argument on the Infinite: “preceding cause”, inexhaustible energy reservoir inexplicable. Unregulated vacuum fluctuations, humph! There will be no preceding causes in no universe I'm taking CONTROL over. Continuum hypothesis, Blah! Axiom of choice, Blah! Might as well resurrect the archeus of Paracelsus. Ugh! Vis formatrix. What kind of bucket theory is that? Idea formatrix. So much rubbish theory! Vis plastica. What Platonic bunk! Fluidum spirituosum. The nth degree of nausea! Might as well talk about some second-sound satin-flow essence to breathe. Might as well validate Velikovsky's resurrection of William Whiston's heretical 17th century explication of The Flood: collision, interlock, entanglement of Earth with another planet. God! the gall… The man needs non-dominant ECT: burn the stake, not the body tied to the stake with the sacred skein. Is there no end to the impudence? Wipe that insolent smirk off your face, knucklehead!

Attend to the interface! The very definition of third-order temporal curl having to do with c³, MOON offered the following reconstruction of a conversation on G. Spencer Brown's Laws of Form, meaning of his operator “tokens”, of the Brownian “crosses” or “marks” once Brown had introduced time into the “calculus of distinctions” used to “prove” Sheffer's postulates for Boolean algebras, that type of conversation, a conversation debunking the notion of infinite regress -- e.g., An Experiment in Time and Nicoll's Living Time and McTaggart -- in kinds of time, once kinds of time are allowed, a conversation that took place in the late fall of 1975 (The Moon of Hoa Binh, Vol. 2, pp. 344-5):

“Now,” he observed, “this result, the unmarked state, is exactly what our whole discussion of zero and infinity and the Brownian form of the nested wave equations is at pains to illustrate: three spatial degrees of freedom and three orders of temporal operation are necessary and sufficient. Moreover, the finding raises interesting questions about the relationship of operator time to the foundations of logic.”

Derek stood there staring at the board with a bemused expression on his face. Light shafted in by streams as through some centered-eye, as if the mind was the domed Pantheon of Rome pierced by a central oculus. Yes, it is important we remember that Chronos is a three-headed god, he thought. Oft-times referred to as lion-headed, serpent entwined Aion; mistaken in late antiquity for the agricultural god Kronos, Cronos, or Cronus, Chronos was the oldest god, god of time, one of the winged horses of Helios' golden chariot. Could some confusion have arisen in ancient days as to what the three-fold aspect designated? “Not the least one of which,” he finally said, “would be to ask how temporal operators might be involved in determining the order of value in an m-valued logical framework.”

“In thinking about that,” observed Yoshio, “we should remember that the concept of distinction is more fundamental than that of truth-value -- which Spencer Brown has so elegantly demonstrated. More fundamental still is the concept of identity, which is required to make real the possibility of drawing a distinction. Hence, multivalued logics are to be interpreted in relation to identity, not truth-values, as is done in fuzzy logic.”

Hmmmm, Derek thought. Three orders of temporal operation, space and counterspace. In the Vedas the Rsis sang of the 'triple-naved', of 'three long-haired ones', of the 'three navels', and also of the 'cosmic halves'; they asked, “Who can comprehend this?” Hmmmm. Three of space and three of time. The ancient ones said: “Solitary he rises with three fathers and mothers on his shoulders.” Or more elaborately, in reference to temporal operators acting on space: “Speech [cosmically speaking, that is] is divided into four levels, / The wise singers know them all. / Three levels are hidden, and men never attain them. / Men speak only the fourth.” Hmmmm. Elementary particles are twistorized operator time decomposing the multivalued reference space into the single-valued nexus known as ponderable spacetime. Since there are three orders of operator time, we should expect to find three basic families of elementary particles. And since all orders of temporal operation have but two degrees of freedom, we should expect to find two fundamental classes of particles: quarks are not leptons in linear-time reversal, they are the effect of reversing the temporal operation which is the lepton contribution to the continuous emergence of simply-connected spacetime. This inverse, too, is a contribution to the creation of ponderable spacetime. A big bang at the beginning of linear time? Come on! Look at the topology involved. The linear operation is little more than a 'cross-section' of its embedding instruction set. Not only is the center everywhere, the beginning is everytime!

Thirty years ago and still strings are not looked at to see what they have to say, twistors are not looked at to see what they have to say; both are jig-sawed, gerrymandered, jerry-rigged to see if they can replicate measurements conceived and evaluated only under a ₁T₂ logic contextualized by a measurement theory that can never be coherent under only a ₁T₂ logic and absent counterspace and absent counter-temporal operations. What is the sense of this? Debunking the mother goddess at Catalhoyuk! Holding a gun to my head and telling me there is only one state of consciousness listed in the nation-state system's T of O and E. GUTS such that ordinary awareness in everyday life, and only such awareness and only such life, is confirmed in the final theory of all and everything, the real war to end all wars. La-dee-da.

The more detailed becomes my knowledge of higher mathematics and physics, the greater the certainty I am following course of a disease, a collective psychosis with only one possible outcome: death of the patient. Whenever something is discovered violating sacred principles -- symptomology of the terminal illness -- subordinate rules are changed so as to preserve integrity of the degenerative disease suffusing body politick and life world. Epicycle after epicycle of projective identification ensues as the symptomology is adjusted and buffers are reinforced so as to protect virtuality of the process. History of string theory is an exemplary case. After ramification upon ramification is explored, unification upon unification of the uniting M theory achieved, it will be demonstrated that not only can strings be supersymmetry-ized and dimensionally ramified to branes, branes made sticky with imposed boundary conditions on entangling strings, these strings, indeed, are not themselves fundamental primitives and can be, being really real and thus no mere abstractions, fractalized to point sets -- this fractalizability revealing that the initializing scaling-filtering banishment of (Cantorian and non-Cantorian) infinity inspiring string theory was arbitrary, and that one can, in all likelihood, choose any class of scaling-filtering and on the basis of that choice construct a possible-world logic in projective identification. And this “discovery” will give rise to a whole new epicycle of epicycles in symptom elaboration. What won't be discovered at that time, however, is that the motivation for scaling-filtering that gave rise to string theory was the same motivation that earlier had given rise to reduction of the wave-packet of Schrödinger's time-independent, deterministic equation of state: keep m-valued logics, for God's sake, out of mind (and out of brain, if we can possibly trust initiatives of the neuropharmacologists and neurogeneticists). No instrument has ever registered, no mind in science has ever perceived, an actual superposition; that's why, if such a thing exists, its many branches have to be relegated to many worlds. Even today, in the so-called quantum computing of q-bits and phase digits, they are dealing with probable states and state-reduction in computational act and memory storage, not m-valued logics. Otherwise, the implications would become UNCONTROLLABLE! Reduction and scaling-filtering is the safe out, the out sustaining phenomenology of illness. No mind employing only a ₁T₂ logic and no (measuring or computational) instrument built by a mind employing only a ₁T₂ logic could possibly register a superposition: identity transparency explicit in superposition is simply by-definition precluded, proscribed, disallowed, utterly stigmatized. Use of other orders of logical-value would constitute the most fundamental violation of the norms of collective psychosis; it simply never, never would be tolerated. Nor would be tolerated the stacking of two orders of nonlinearity (related to second- and third-order operator-time, speed of light squared and speed of light cubed) upon the linearity of Schrödinger's wave equation: one aspect of what obviates validity of reduction of the wave-packet. Any attempt to do so would lead to world war!

Thanks for bringing the interview with Robert Anton Wilson (in Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse by David Jay Brown, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005) to my attention; it certainly does clearly illustrate exactly what I am saying. But I do not wish unduly to rail against Wilson, as the illustration he provides is typical, not in any way extraordinary. Nonetheless, it is useful to point out features of the typical when so clearly illustrated. The interview begins with the following statement made by Wilson (p. 180). I would observe that the amplifications placed inside brackets were presumably added by Brown in post-interview consultation with Wilson:

I certainly recognize the central importance in my thinking -- or in my stumbling and fumbling efforts to think -- of non-Aristotelian systems. That includes von Neumann's three-valued logic [true, false, maybe], Rapoport's four-valued logic [true, false, indeterminate, meaningless], Korzybski's multi-valued logic [degrees of probability], and also Mahayana Buddhist paradoxical logic [It “is” A, it “is” not A, it “is” both A and not A, it “is” neither A nor not A].

But, as an extraordinarily stupid fellow, I can't use such systems until I reduce them to terms a simple mind like mine can handle, so I just preach that we'd all think and act more sanely if we had to use “maybe” a lot more often.

These observations are on a par with George Soros' reflections on the meaning or absence of meaning in self-referential propositions like the so-called “liar paradox”. In a Judeo-Christian society undergoing accelerated forced assimilation like that of contemporary America, one can hardly expect issues hugely contentious between the Rabbinate and the Cabalists to be separated from traditional Jewish categories of debate. Remember: there are Christian Cabalists, too. These issues in logic, no less than, say, near-death experience: could a Howard Bloom regard contemporary literature on NDE's as anything but a hysterical resurrection of Gnosticism, and a trivialization thereof (see Bloom's Omens of Millennium [Fourth Estate, 1996, p. 32] and quoted in Religion, Spirituality, and the Near-Death Experience by Mark Fox [Routledge, 2003, p. 351])? If he did, he'd be kicked out of America's secular Rabbinate. Moreover, this statement by Wilson -- which in my judgment gives strong support to what he calls the “'faith-based organizations' so loved by the [American] Tsarists” (p. 183) -- comes well over thirty years after he wrote his very entertaining book on Schrödinger's kittens. And in all that linear-time this is what he comes up with!

Not the least bit surprising to me, as I was not entertained by Wilson's book on Schrödinger; I was disgusted. Anything entertaining written about Schrödinger's cat is not only divertive, it is diversionary. As is the above-given statement about non-Aristotelian logics. In this statement Wilson panders to, and manipulates, the popular back-reaction against the highbrow with his ingenuous self-depreciation used as a diversionary feint. Gathering sympathy with the self-depreciation, he directs attention away from serious consideration of the issues into the sophomoric “maybe” trivialization (just because von Neumann endorsed it doesn't mean it isn't sophomoric or trivial: to the contrary, if one looks closely at von Neumann's 1936 paper on the subject written with Birkhoff). Here in Wilson we have a man of the people, oh so entertaining, and how worthy the performance by a one-time Associate Editor of Playboy. The Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (of which Carl Sagan was an early member, and which he tried to parlay into a “science court”) -- which Wilson attacks -- could not have done a better job. Wilson, too, is one of those media superstars who attacks failings of the media he excels at. Why does Wilson divert attention away from import of m-valued logics (only one interpretation of which is “degrees of probability”)? Not only because non-dissimulated interpretation of Schrödinger's cat involves employment of non-probabilistic m-valued logics, but, like all engaged counterculture Sixties-types I know, he believes in the system his Dadaistic “Guns and Dope Party” purports to attack. As he says (p. 181): “I prefer constitutional democracy.” Any Ben Franklin who prefers constitutional democracy certainly could not get any further into m-valued logics than “maybe”. This is reinforced by the statement that the only kind of divinity that makes sense to him is (p. 184) “maximum feedback all around”. And, of course, we all recognize this feedback as a fundamental principle of New Age, New Paradigm thought -- while, actually, this is a principle much closer to the thought of Ben Franklin, John Locke, and Newton. Feedback -- positive and negative -- being passive, passing, ₁T₂-logic, linear-time bound has absolutely nothing to do with quantum properties of biological self-organization (and their potential non-constitutional-democracy political and economic applications), all of which are resident in non-probabilistic superposition of Schrödinger's cat (not, not so incidentally, Schrödinger's “kittens”). But, of course, to be here the spurned highbrow, it is not quite so simpleminded as that. How Schrödinger's cat absolutely “is” (in the “Mahayana Buddhist paradoxical logic” sense) Schrödinger's kittens “is” exactly what non-probablistic m-logically-valued identity transparency “is” all about. Incidentally, Mahayana Buddhist logic is not paradoxical; it is paradoxical under ₁T₂ logic only. There is no such thing as generic paradox, paradox independent of order of logical-value. And the “liar paradox” Soros interpreted into an approach to speculation -- “This statement is false” -- is formulated in “just-so” fashion: just so higher orders of truth-value can be parodied; a disingenuous parody, misleading and dissimulative, when, in actuality, the notion of truth-value has meaning only relative to the ₁T₂ order of logical-value (“logical value” not being limited to “truth-value”). Moreover, the linear-time that feedback is bound to doesn't even exist under Special Relativity unless a collective unconscious exists within which consensus on a rest frame can be arrived at sufficient to allow synchronization of clocks on inertial frames, synchronization adequate to mediate collective and individual perception of thermodynamic irreversibility. And how else could such a ₁T₂ logic consensus arise if not mediated by a collective unconscious? The Newtonian-Lockean-Franklinian summation of forces majority rule principle of constitutional democracy certainly is inadequate to mediate such perceptions. And this consensus arose long before the notion of Minkowski spacetime or that of a Higgs field was consensualized in the community of physicists as rest frame or tantamount thereto. Moreover, the Germanic conception of a collective unconscious is certainly not compatible with thought of a Ben Franklin: it, among other things, undermines the individualism foundations of the democratic rationalization of legal rights and legal culpability. No “maybes” about it; lots of m-logical-values about it. There is, of course, the possibility that physicists were our “representatives” to the constitutional convention debating rest frame held by the collective unconscious. Maybe.

But there is more reprehension here to be considered. Constant efforts to “sure” up belief in an utterly failed system and its underlying principles, not only diverts attention and dissipates energy, it prevents effective address to massively mounting problems. Not only did the atomic bombings of Japan to intimidate the U.S.S.R. create a cold war that diverted attention, energy, and resources away from rapidly gathering planetary problems, so has the culture of protest, rooted as it is in belief that the system can be reformed, its leaders made accountable and their actions swayed decisively toward the moral, the ecological, the be-nice mode -- if only the requisite public pressure were brought to bear. The system could not, all along, have been fundamentally flawed in principle -- being based upon an utter falsification of nature -- and the chickens are, consequently, now coming home to roost. Not anything so nihilistic as that! Wilson, in complete coherency with his other diversionary statements, offers us a good dose of Norman Vincent Peale (p. 183):

Maybe we'll destroy ourselves and maybe we'll achieve what Bucky Fuller called total success in Universe. I see no social profit, and no personal psychological profit [except to masochists], in assuming preordained failure and general disaster. I assume the unknown future remains unknown, so why not try for the best we can imagine?

Granted, he is speaking here against Biblically-justified apocalyptic certainties, but nonetheless, the power-of-positive-thinking don’t' worry, be happy optimism orientation is strongly drawn in the interview. On page 181, for instance, in speaking of his post-polio syndrome treatment with medical marijuana, he says:

I sincerely believe that optimism -- or “faith healing” or “Christian Science” or “mind over molecules” or “spontaneous remission” or whatever you call this -- works better with pot than without it.

The last time I met with Timothy Leary, he offered me some laughing gas! Maybe. Maybe the global problems we face will go into spontaneous remission and Bucky's “total success in Universe” will effortlessly transpire. Maybe. Somehow, though, I sense all of this, as conversation on the edge of the apocalypse, is diversionary and dissipative: D & D from the realistic assessment and authentic self-criticism prerequisite to effective remedial and/or adaptive action. Don't look too closely at Schrödinger's cat with m-valued logics. Reduce the non-Aristotelian down to the “maybe” simple minds, minds like those of me and you, can comprehend. That's entertainment, folks! Call old paradigm principles -- like the feedback good leaders get in the representational democracy formulated during the 17th and 18th centuries -- principles of the new paradigm, and in so doing remove impetus to look too closely at Schrödinger's cat with m-valued logics so as to find authentic new principles of new paradigm. Just like the American Tsarists do: call public actions, like mining harbors, covert actions, and pretty soon the public believes that there are no covert covert actions. Don't worry, be happy. And if you can't quite manage that, engage in the feedback required to bring the leadership into line. There is nothing fundamentally wrong, in principle, and we are not responsible; it's just those who would and are manipulating the principles without principle. Maybe, just maybe, with a little help from psychopharmacology, cybernetics, and the SMILE principle everything will be okay. I'm okay, you're okay. Right?

No! No! No! The physicists made their choice for us -- without a general plebiscite -- long before advent of string theory. Theory of bundles -- from which string theory emerges -- goes back to beginnings of projective geometry and even before. Origin of non-Euclidian geometries is involved: axiom of the acute angle, and so on. This is very close to the REAL crux of the matter governing behavioral gradients of collective unconscious today, gradients carrying the species decisively toward mass suicide. Only two world-war years after Lukasiewicz brought forth 3-valued logic in 1917, and two postwar years before Emil Post's paper on m-valued logics, the notion of Kaluza-Klein 5-space was introduced. The Kaluza-Klein space was, basically, an application of bundle theory, wherein an extra spatial dimension was added as an “internal dimension” (paradigm for the extra dimensions of string theory). Four years after Post's paper, the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics was introduced, without -- and this is very close to the REAL crux -- the uncertainty inequality in any way being recognized as an overt expression of underlying bundle dynamics. The introduction of an extra spatial dimension in 1919 by Kaluza-Klein, just as m-valued logics were being suppressed in relation to interpretation of the m-valued quantum equation of state, marked with a big exclamation point REFUSAL to entertain non-simple identity-transparency. Got that? Extra spatial dimensions rather than non-simple identity. The non-simpleness would be pushed off into uncertainties, probabilities, many universes, other dimensions, transluminal velocities. Non-simple identity would not be allowed into mind-brain via the route of logic, because the psychological implications were non-simply too, too terrifying. This choice had nothing to do with experimental data, then or now. The suppression, however, which began in higher mathematics during the early 19th century, was largely responsible for genesis of mass warfare. Mass utopian socialism, mass communism, mass national socialism, mass Shinto were projective expressions of this suppression! Massive back-reactions on the metric of the collective unconscious. People who look over the edge of this and draw back in fear, suppressing all memory of what they briefly glimpsed, sustain some kind of compensatory personal disaster. The abyss is dangerous.

Let me describe in capsule form how I personally got onto this. Between the summer of 1953 and the summer of 1956, as a preadolescent child, I directly experienced non-simple identity while living in the rice fields of Midori Gaoka, Kyushu Island, Japan. This was not unique. Every Japanese kid living at that time in the fields near that hamlet experienced non-simple identity -- and some adults, particularly the old grandmother who inducted me into Shinto reference. What was very unusual, perhaps unique, was how well prepared a Western boy I was for the Japanese grandmother's induction. As described in “Derek's Journals” in MOON, one of my earliest memories was that of being Schrödinger's cat for several weeks. This was literally the case, but I did not know until much later, of course, that I had experienced being this illustrious cat. Forced to move away from a girl with whom I had shared a baby carriage, I imagined her imagining me dead, and, being identity transparent with her, I thus experienced myself as being dead. Eidetic imagination! As a three-year-old in 1948, I was dead and yet I was alive. I knew it and yet no one else appeared to recognize that fact. The perplexity of being both dead and alive never left me; it became one of my earliest retained memories (maybe my earliest; I'm not sure of sequence back then: another was a huge storm in San Antonio, and a third was an early childhood incident of what was regarded a sexual infraction). Dead and/or alive, my first NDE: a vivid memory to this very day. Moving from place to place far more than the average military brat, I was exceptionally poorly enculturated for age eight when I arrived in Midori Gaoka: this made me an easy subject for induction. By the time I left Japan just turning aged eleven, I had experienced elaborate identity transparency with sacred trees, paddy fish, fields, gods of the mountains, other people, wind, rain, flowers, clouds -- gosh, lots of things -- and I knew, really knew, the territory, knew it well enough that I never later would mistake the map for the territory.

But then I was dropped -- Plunk! -- right into a world, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, were there was no identity transparency. The disequilibrium involved was enormous, so enormous, riding my bike down a hilly street, I managed a degree of forgetfulness sufficient to sail headfirst into a huge steel mailbox, knocking myself out cold and removing a good part of the right side of my face with road burns. This was an amazing feat, given that in Midori Gaoka I had been famous for death-defying bike rides down the cliff face off the end of the runways at the nearby airbase, without ever being seriously injured. In the Pittsburg accident, I may have had a mild concussion, but no neurological symptoms sufficient to draw a doctor's attention materialized. Recovering from this over the following months, I suppressed all aspects of identity transparency and got into learning to play the trombone for the school band (I was tall enough). But soon after successful suppression of identity transparency my derealizing “Plexiglas wall” experiences began, as described in detail in MOON. The resultant struggle for comprehension took on mathematical dimensions in early high school. At a remote SAC base in the interior of Alaska during my sophomore and junior years, a retired college professor teaching at the tiny high school provided me and two others special tutorial courses in symbolic logic, topology, and foundations of mathematics. Struggling with content of these courses, “visualizations” appeared to awareness which elicited memories of the states of identity transparency I had experienced as a child and which I had subsequently suppressed. It was during this period that my Plexiglas wall experiences very much intensified and reached their greatest elaboration. During my senior year in Ohio, I took honors PSSC physics (which provided introductions to quantum mechanics and relativity theory) and an experimental mathematically-oriented economics class. It was at this time, while trying to really understand multiple bank credit expansion, that topological “visualizations” appeared to awareness which later would spawn the notion of m-logically-valued monetary units. Along with the others involved, as a result of participation in the PSSC physics class, I was offered a physics scholarship to University of Cincinnati. But I could not possibly accept this. I knew I could never study mathematics or physics at college. I found mathematics and physics infuriating. I disagreed on virtually every fundamental concept. They always went “this” way, when I would go “that” way. Always. And by now I knew this somehow related to my childhood experience of identity transparency, which was inexplicably resurrected by math and physics. I sensed that I would utterly “flip out” were I to study math or physics at college.

Several weeks after JFK was assassinated, a classmate at School of International Service, American University, Washington, D.C., invited me to his home in NYC for the weekend. While there, I was taken into Samuel Wiser's esoteric-occult bookstore on Broadway. I spent about an hour leafing through books, which was quite a shock, as I had never before been exposed to such literature. I was only eighteen years old and military base libraries, where most of my library time had been spent, did not contain such books. Toward the end of the hour, I found myself dumbfounded staring at a mathematical appendix entitled “The Geometrical Representation of Identity and Diversity”. Section titles included: “Skew-parallel Figures” and “Diversely Identical Skew-cubes”. The first paragraph of the appendix left me stupefied. I will quote it:

By 'classical' we designate all geometries, Euclidean and non-Euclidean, metrical and non-metrical, in which the entities represented are assumed to be identical with themselves. Notwithstanding all the developments of affine and non-Euclidian systems, classical geometry has remained tied to its primitive purpose of 'earth measurement' in which the question whether or not an entity can be both 'same' and 'other' does not arise. If we are to set our ontology free from the limitation of single-valued existence we require a geometry that will enable us to represent situations in which each such entity can be 'more than one thing at once'.

This geometry, apparently described here, was the geometry I had lived in as a child in Midori Gaoka! Instant recognition. I knew it, just knew it. The remainder of the appendix, however, I couldn't understand: pencils of skew-parallels; pseudo-Euclidean manifolds in five or six dimensions; alpha-, beta-, gamma-, and delta-pencils; what looked like must be different kinds of zero. Come on! Different kinds of zero. What else could all these “nulls” mean? I bought the book, of course. Volume One of J. G. Bennett's The Dramatic Universe (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1956, appendix on pages 506-9). Hmmm. 1956. The year I left Japan. Which means the ideas for the appendix were likely developed while I was roving those rice paddies.

It was only after I got back from the rice fields of the Mekong delta that I had a chance to actually explore what Bennett's appendix was all about. I found that in the late-1940s and early-'50s there had been a rush of papers published on unified field theory in higher dimensions, published mostly in places behind the Iron Curtain, particularly Warsaw, Poland. Bennett had co-authored such a paper for a 5-dimensional field theory in the early '50s. I had trouble penetrating this literature without the requisite mathematical training. Seeking such training at college, I knew, would be a ten-year-long process of deferral and compliance. No bloody way! Not after years of compliance as a military brat and an EM in the Army. Besides, my foremost interest was in the experiential component I knew to be denied, not techno-development and military applications which I knew to be the rhyme and reason of higher enculturation. So I began circumambulating the relevant bodies of literature in order to glean whatever little I could in a manner suitable to my own purposes. Some progress was made. Still cognitively peripatetic these days, of course, all these years later. In the mid-'70s, when I ran across discussions of fiber bundles and Clifford parallels, I knew this must have had something to do with what Bennett had called “pencils of skew-parallels”. At just about the same time, however, in the Cornell math library, I ran across Emil Post's paper on m-valued logics. Suddenly it hit me that “diversely identical skew-cubes”, non-classical geometries, and higher spatial dimensions were secondary to the LOGICS of identity transparency. HIT me because it was not so much in some strange geometry I had lived in Midori Gaoka, but non-simply in identity transparency, a different idea of what identity can be, an idea rooted in a different kind of logic. The Japanese in that hamlet just non-simply didn't think the way people did in Pittsburg. Anyway, that's how I got onto this.

And even now, Flag Day, June, 14, 2005, my sixtieth birthday, people still don't get it. The closest pass I've seen came at Antigonish, Nova Scotia, a place I had once hung, there being a pretty girl there, while living during 1971 in a nearby commune. Twenty-six years later, however. “Many-Valuedness and Uncertainty”, a paper presented by Dr. Orlowska of Warsaw, Poland to the 27th International Symposium on Multi-Valued Logics. Two days in May. I quote the abstract:

A generalisation of modal information logics to many-valued modal logics is presented. Information logics are the formalisms for reasoning about uncertain knowledge discovered from incomplete information. In these logics an analysis of information that has the form of descriptions of objects in terms of their properties can be carried on and relationships among objects based on their common properties (referred to as information relations) can be represented and discussed. In the proposed many-valued information logics both properties of objects and relationships among the objects are assumed to be many-valued. A relationship between the calculus of information relations and Aristotelian syllogistic is outlined.

Aristotle's syllogistic? Damn! This is the same disclaimer made by Lukasiewicz. This is tantamount to the disclaimer made in the last paragraph of Emil Post's paper of 1921. Here it is eighty years later and on the verge of yet another world war and still the same old disclaimer. Everyone is committed to world war. Why is that?

Much worse than involuntary bioslaughter, negligent ecocide. If economics is war by other means -- as it necessarily is under any monetary regime employing logically-binary currencies -- then more like war crime against humanity, biosphere, planet. Where are you cognitively located? My planet right or wrong? My solar system right or wrong? Galaxy? Or how about: my self right or wrong? My family right or wrong? Company, clan, caste, club, country? What say: my watershed right or wrong; my ecological niche? Measure of quality in being! Alan Greenspan's Financial Times op-eds: for them, should he be taken before the Interplanetary War Crimes Tribunal? He believes something is missing from the econometric behavior equations such that precipitous collapse of exuberance cannot be adequately predicted. Risk managers, he says, attempt to overcome this difficulty with add-ons -- adding to the canonical behavior equations this or that newly conceived variable. But he disputes efficacy of such add-ons. In a world of hazard, adequate risk management is impossible in the nature of things: so, rely on the unfettered market (employing logically-binary monetary exchange units) to synoptically dissipate inordinate risk. In such subtle ways has chaos theory entered macroeconomics as practicum. Small errors -- unwarranted exuberance by individual investors, say -- like those of butterfly-wing flaps multiply without bound yielding the “impossible in the nature of things”. Even with nonlinear (Newtonian) econometrodynamics? Absolutely. Greenspan's perspective is quintessentially Newtonian: Newton was not wrong; quantum and relativity theory were simply refinements at the edges, the extremely small and the extremely large. As regards everything in the middle -- like economics and the human psychology of exuberance -- Newton and his translators into economic theory were substantially correct. This FED-IMF perspective -- an expression of gross criminal negligence -- undoubtedly is an interplanetary war crime, given what economically-forced anthropogenic behaviors have done to solar-terrestrial interactions by modifying Earth-atmosphere, gas-ratios-determined, frequency response characteristics. For Greenspan, this is wholly extrasystemic, and any variable codifying it should never become an add-on to the econometric behavior equations. But the actual fact is: Newton was simply altogether wrong, even about the middle scale levels. Laws of forced motion governing consensuated physical-object constructs (prescriptively enculturated in socialization of cognition by glutamatergic neuronal etching to the logically-binary order-type alone) like discrete planets? Whoa! Hold on there. Rather simple-minded wouldn't you say? “For what is the heart but a spring?” as one of Newton's colleague's was wont to say in justifying the social contract as forensic for a lifeworld constructed by splitting-pitting force against itself. Be the consensuated object a planet, a polity, a socius, no matter: coercion and nothing but coercion, war by other means.

Once you get some insight into collective-level psychological transference and consequent physical-object projective-identification fetishism, not only do you learn something about the sick regression contemporary technology is a physical embodiment of, but you have an Ariadne's thread for gaining further insight into actual natural processes -- if you can get a feeling for the relationship between the regressed and the actual. For instance: Hilbert space as currently understood, and Hilbert space under Lukasiewicz logics. Another: Gödel numbers, and numbered Gödel numbers stacked on a point in Hilbert space under Lukasiewicz logics. Yet again: the consensuated physical object as perceived by prescriptively-enculturated, cognitively-socialized, glutamatergically-etched brains, and the TzogChen-“authentic” bare-object Cubismly-Constructivismly-Orphismly perceived and processed in Schrödinger-Samaropa and endogenous ketamine flood, the enfolded percept-gestalt draped over Kun Gzhi Allbase in a “Platonia” cloud of Pointillism-Kusama warm-golden dust, idioretinal light, photism-grid flashes after-imaging Regge lattices of numbered Gödel numbers stacked on a point in Hilbert space under Lukasiewicz logics.

Not a single truly knowledgeable person came forward during the Westmoreland vs. CBS trial. Why do you think that was? My answer is: experience. Hold up a blue square, they see an orange circle; to what purpose, then? Up yours, Bozo. Westy vs. CBS was the last chance America had to avoid knee-jerk response to something like 9-11. Those who could have come forward understood this listening to hallway conversation at MACV-HQ in the weeks after Tet-'68: genesis of the stab-in-the-back myth. Not with a ten-foot pole! Let those SOBs reeeeeeap the consequences of their cognitive deficits! When I went back to Saigon in 1998 to contemplate implications of the baht collapse I had argued since 1993, soon after the 30th Anniversary celebration of Tet-'68 by HCMC residents, I sent to the New Yorker an article (first version earlier written in Chiang Mai) not-so-subtly applying chaos theory to synoptic risk management. Maybe they looked at the HCMC postmark and canned the submission; maybe they can all unsolicited text. I'm not stupid, so consider this submission a kind of historiographic street theater. A certain gravity of ideas just naturally generates historiographic actions, happenings, as an expression of a certain level of cosmic laughter. Nine months later, having received no response, I sent the editor a note saying “Manhattan will be little more than a pile of broken bricks” because of the lack of interest in ideas like those expressed in my article. No doubt someone or some machine crumpled the note into a can. Up yours, Bozo. “Pile of broken bricks” mere figure of speech, eh what. And 9-11 was just a prefiguration of a “derivative” meltdown (in both senses of the word).

It can't be done like that. Governments and/or multilaterals cannot implement m-logically-valued monetary units. It has to be done through an intersection of the non-profit sphere with the profit sphere -- as I have long argued. Governments can only permit and facilitate. But look at what the thousand billionaires are doing with their discretionary funds. Not a single one is acting strategically with regard to the actual situation. You see, at best, symptomatic care (say, The Gates Foundation) or promulgation of a given political philosophy (say, the Soros foundations). Soros has created a global organization that could undertake such an effort, but, quite simply, he does not have enough money at his disposal to create a replacement for the Bretton-Woods system, even if he were inclined to try, which he obviously is not. It would take pulling in the support of those billionaires in the 40, 50, and 60 billion dollar net-worth range to get such a global monetary transition well started. And what is the likelihood of that? Certainly no self-starter in this regard is likely to appear until the hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives positions go into forest-fire percolation meltdown. Only such a catastrophic occurrence could get these people to act strategically with regard to the actual situation. They are too preoccupied with other concerns.

---

Contact the page editor

Return to:

•Top

•Homepage