TRANCHE 16

My autogenic discharge neuroeconomics grows out of my m-logically-valued quantum econophysics. Smart lynch mob logic of collective action by hyperpeopled viral communicators on the derivatives market is artificial neural network epileptiform “wisdom of the crowd” spreading ₁T₂-logic action-potential in a netcasting (a Christic activity, one should note, recorded in gematria of the Vesica Pisces, et cetera) environment that could manifest spontaneous social order if and only if referenced to a nesting _µT_m wave-effect monetary configuration space. Order is not simply presence of pattern to ₁T₂ mind, however much or little thermodynamics might dominate that mind. First thoughts on the topologies of optimum currency areas over monetary manifolds, and their constant-credit surfaces, came in early-1963 while simultaneously taking two high school honors classes: Accelerated Economics and PSSC Physics (following monitored self-study courses the previous two years in symbolic logic, topology, and foundations of mathematics). Because the objective was and is to effect enhancement of the level of systemic self-organizational competency by incorporating externalities, not to model existing market incompetence, wave-effect brain-discharge perspectives upon monetary manifolds began to emerge during the early-1970s after a Viet Nam war sojourn whereupon it was absolutely clear beyond all possible doubt that conscious faculties play only a modest role in motivating individual human actions, the rational factor of the conscious component playing an even smaller role. One quickly learns that a little sympathy for the devil goes a long way and that trying to speak to conscious mind of the “other” goes no distance at all. Moreover, it was equally pellucid that collective action is no mere sum, integral, or derivative of individual actions and that the conscious component of collective occasions of experience (which no one with battlefield experience -- particularly as a dagger-team member, SOG operative, Mike Force or Hatchet Forces or Roadrunner or Ruff-Puff “advisor”, forward-observer or BDA type -- and an ounce of introspective capacity could possibly doubt the existence of) is vanishingly small, while the ₁T₂, Aristotle's syllogistic, rational factor of collective unconscious functioning is simply altogether nonexistent (rather -- the involved m-valued functions in Heinz Hartmann's “problem of adaptation” being largely non-egoic -- they are governed by the logics of the various orders of transfinite sets: The Unconscious as Infinite Sets). Not so incidentally, and by way of a “thank you”, I was introduced to Hartmann and associated literature during the summer following graduation from high school by a close woman friend of my mother I visited for two months who was a specialist in treatment of childhood schizophrenia at a hospital in Lexington, Kentucky. Mancur Olson's “collective-action problem” is, according to these lights, a non-problem on two counts, as Derek pejoratively notes in MOON: no actual discrete actor to engage in action-based sociologies and no possibility of ₁T₂ rationally differentiating or integrating to ₁T₂ anti-rational altruism from the nonexistent discrete actors nonexistent to nonexistent action-based sociologies. Non-questions leading to non-problems: free-rider, prisoner, zero-sums, win-win, Everett algorithms on escalation control options, utility configurations, fitness landscapes, and so on. How effective have mere bee stings been at deterring bears from raiding bee hives wherever found? And what bearing does this have on origins of human supersociality? Altruistically selfish genes, selfishly altruistic genes: so much non-quantum stereo-chemistry to me! Sitting in such classrooms? Nah! Moreover, under such circumstances -- not to mention those atemporal: where the rate of the rate of the baud-rate of consciousness equals the spin components of 3-fold operator-time -- Seabright recursive reciprocity is a mere shadow of Gurdjieff's “reciprocal maintenance” by decompositional involutes over J. G. Bennett's “pencils of skew-parallels” (which I read about before going to Viet Nam). The time-bound reciprocal-altruism gamesmanship of ₁T₂-logical actors is a pale horse next to the quantum relative-state identity-transparency drawn by pencils of skew-parallels. Games there surely be, but they are all _µT_m multiple scenarios virtual gaming marketplaces: animistic Vietnamese “human chess”, for instance. Wartime experience strongly reinforced the preadolescent suspicion nascently cultivated in immediate post-occupation Japan (post-occupation, under the assumption that it is ₁T₂ rational to consider that Japan at some point ceased to be occupied) that peaceful anthropology is a myth promulgated by violent academic savages cognitively opaque to the ₁T₂ digital-switch neural action-potential basis for punishing altruism with glutamaturgic neural network wipeouts misconstrued as promoting childhood cognitive development (development to ₁T₂ dysfunction normally regarded normative). Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny. Absence of warfare existed not before the rise of the nation-state, not before “the traditional”, not before the rise of chaordic panarchical stateless societies, but in the “Age of the Gods” -- which is atemporal in the above-stated sense -- ontologically and logically (but not linear-time wise) before the rise of shamanistic role stratification through collapse of the Stone Age equipotential-selection trance-seizure economies of conscious access to holarchical standing wave-effect brain processing under _µT_m logics, collapse by decomposition-cascade to ₁T₂-digital logic gates only, arrayed parallel or serial, however hypercubed… at a time, at a time, at a time, at a time, at a time… Ain't no Dadaism here, dats fo' sure. But it is so, dear Pirandello, if you think so -- particularly for keyword searchers, as keywording teaches operational thinking and quenches abstract thought. People, like bees, note buzz words, and their emotional set is thus determined. Everything else passes below the horizon. The Googling of human brain will be its final death knell: IDHS (MACV Intelligence Data Handling System) to the nth degree.

So, why, then, do you think infinite regress has been deemed a logical fallacy -- a logical fallacy to ₁T₂ Aristotelian syllogistic logical march, I might qualify? Because role stratification cannot exist without this fallacy; because the social contract justification of massed coercion naming itself Leviathan cannot exist without this fallacy; because the all-against-all condition -- a condition which has never occurred anywhere, anytime, in any universe-- could not be used to morally justify coercive imposition of Leviathan without this fallacy; because first-, second- and third-order quenching of collective action cannot exist without this fallacy; because thermodynamic equilibrium cannot exist without this fallacy; because first-, second- and third-order operator-time cannot be quenched -- quenched such that autopoiesis and self-organization of collective and cooperative behaviors according to the quantum potential carried by relative-state identity-transparency is nullified -- without this fallacy. Why do you think nonlinear (Newtonian) dynamics came on the scene after the emergence of quantum mechanics, not before? Because it is the embodiment of an emotional back-reaction against the larger implications of quantum theory, a back-reaction formulated in just such a fashion as to block emergence of nonlinear (quantum) dynamics, the type of quantum theory that can be generalized into the social sciences, whereas linear quantum theory interpreted to probability amplitudes cannot. And why do you think the probability amplitude interpretation caught on like a firestorm over Dresden? Precisely because it cannot be effectively generalized into the social sciences! And why do you think there was a firestorm over Dresden? Because there had earlier been a firestorm of consensus over Born's striking dissimulation. Collective action by ₁T₂-logical rational actors is logically impossible by ₁T₂-logic implication under conventions of Aristotle's syllogistic. No ₁T₂ doubt about it! Fact is, as all fire-starters know, there has never been thermodynamic equilibrium, and there never will be. This is because infinite regress is the nature of the case! Even under restriction of logic to the ₁T₂ case, no one has ever provided incontrovertible proof that infinite regress is a fallacy: any possible such proof is axiom driven. There is a reason for this. Axioms close the order of value of the logic employed. Close the logic to ₁T₂ and metalogically characterize it using… what order of logical value? Gödel's proof demonstrates this cannot be done from inside the system pragmatically and heuristically closed. Even a closed logic has multivariate shadow forms and echoes! Greek axiomatics is itself an axiom that cannot be proven using the axiomatic method. Thermodynamic equilibrium has never occurred because there is no such thing as a closed system; there is only an idealized heuristically-closed system (just as a limit in the calculus is only a pragmatic heuristic-limit). And there is no such thing as an open system; there is only an idealized heuristically-open system. All systems everywhen, anywhere are self-reentrant and self-referential by virtue of quantum relative-state identity-transparency; only in the heuristically-open, only in the heuristically-closed, only in the heuristic limit -- the various Planck limits, that is -- can the self-reentrant and self-referential be pragmatically closed off, filtered, renormalized, scaled, fudged. In “the real world” infinite regress rules. Where infinite regress rules there is no localizability, spatially or temporally. And in the real world of infinite regress, nonlinear (quantum) dynamics is not a matter of nonlinear functions over only linear-time; it is nonlinear functions over nonlinear time. And, oh God! worse even than that: the involved nonlinear times (plural) are active topological operators on connectivity and orientability of the representation spaces (ponderable, and otherwise). And, oh God! worse even than that: nonlinear topological operator-time is decomposition product of logical and ontological operators designated by numbered Gödel numbers (logical form of superstrings) distributed according to hypercomplex Riemann zeta functions over an n-dimensional, _µT_m-logical, referencing function space. The easiest way to leave the fantasy world where infinite regress pragmatically and heuristically cannot exist is to observe yourself! The “observer state” of the quantum measurement “problem” (which is no problem in a world of infinite regresses). My body. Myself. The self of myself. The self observing the self of myself… Fukuyama's proclamation regarding “the end of history” is a perfect example of psychological regression-in-service-to-the-ego through projective identification. It's not so much that history has ended; what has ended is the reality-value of linear-time, thoroughly demonstrated to be consensual hallucination. Physics degree zero has been upon us for well over 50 years. The end of time is not the next revolution in physics; it's the last revolution in physics. Science has not worked itself out of a job; it has demonstrated that the job is not what it was thought to be. How many Dresden's lie in the hallucinated future as the species convulsions continue due to what in Autogenic Training is called the “brain-antagonizing thematic evasions” which are one type of “neutralization antagonizing forms of resistance”? Brain-change is a prerequisite to cognitive shape-shift on the order of magnitude we are talking here. Cognitive shape-shift is a prerequisite to brain-change on the order of magnitude we are talking here. And such change-shift/shift-change cannot transpire so long as the neuroeconomics of local economies and global economies remains Newtonian, linear or nonlinear. On the fingers of your left hand count how many people you know undergoing the voluntary dissociation prerequisite to the brain change and cognitive shape shift. Count the mega-urban regions on the planet if you wish to know how many Dresden's. Chicken or egg -- and/or bird flu. Daffy Duck: “Whose flu is this, anyway?”

My suspicion is that if you do not already see Mathematics as a political conspiracy there is little I can do to help you. Though oncoming events are likely to provide a considerable education to survivors. The same for BS: Beauty and Science. Along with Religion and the (-archal)Family, combat arms in the hands of role stratification: life demeanors and death dealers to all species, planet Earth. The conspiracy starts logically with imposition of the notion self-evident “axiom” which prescribes “perspectivity” over the “non-perspectival” and the “aperspectival”, and selects some order of logical-value as the only permissible such order. After a public lecture given at Cornell by the author of The Tao of Physics, someone (I wonder who that could have been?) asked: Why do we need yet one more new paradigm? The question was not understood, of course. An ex-Austrian living in Berkeley, he still hadn't read, or hadn't assimilated, the ex-German ex-soldier's book Against Method. Though the Hilbert program in foundations of mathematics specialized in challenging axioms, and following out ₁T₂-logical consequences of such challenges, it never seriously challenged the notion “axiom” -- and, less radically, it never looked logically at challenges to the axioms of logic, as did the Pole, Jan Lukasiewicz. The Hilbert program tried to formalize the axioms of ₁T₂ logic, not challenge them. Despite these prescriptions, and the world wars they entailed, presently, in some respects, it is a different world. And in this different world, I am no advocate of the axiomatization of _µT_m logics, a veritable “contradiction” in terms (ha-ha-ha!). Chicken and egg. “Self-evident” presupposes the ability to identify “self” and “evidence” which presupposes the ability to distinguish absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinctly between identification and projection -- just as ascertainment of the “meaning of meaning” presupposes the ability to ascertain the meaning “meaning” means. Denoting? Use? Utility? Fitness? Well… where's the prerequisite decocting axiom? Laws of Form? Draw a distinction? A calculus of indications? No-mind is not absence of mind; it is presence of the multivalue! All possible-world axioms stacked modally on Rice Periera's “layered transparent” of The Transcendental Formal Logic of the Infinite, as she would have it. Connoting, perhaps? Painterly abduction decontextualizing lexical-logistical deduction. Not conscious or not, Joe Goode's anima “looking through” Rice's terraced-layered transparent, consciously gone dotty in Yayoi Kusama's treatment for what she takes to be schizophrenia: Aurobindo called this visual abduction of Shintoist kami-dust “warm golden dust of Supermind”. A Sakharov multi-sheeted Novikov dusting to be numbered by numbered Gödel numbers. Imposition of axiomatics mandates a class of permitted states of consciousness by concomitantly prescribing proscription of what identity can and cannot be, and that class (based on can or cannot be) circumscribes the realms available to processing in sexology, genetics, immunology, neurology, psychology, sociology, economics, and politics -- and these circumscriptions enforce (on penalty of incarceration, psychoactive drugging, neuroleptic drug convulsing, electroconvulsive oxidation-burning of the central nervous system, death by one stake or another at the hands of one stakeholder or another) the state of consciousness mandating axiomatics. Gun to my head! The logical song. In what ordinality shall classes of villains be ranked? Axiomatic designation of order of logical-value defines the properties of what identity as an ontological category can and/or cannot be. Under the ₁T₂ order of logical-value only, the impetus to free-riding is maximal and we are all prisoners facing dilemmas (and consequences of rejecting the very idea of truth-value). These are framework conditions imposed by imposition of the notion “axiom” and its mandated theorems and lemmas. Under _µT_m animistic identity transparency, however, there is no possibility to designate absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct prisoners or free-riders (two of the moral justifications for Leviathan). No experience of such distinction exists in the universe of experience where “draw a distinction” has no injunctive competence. Animistic contagion! No injunction by disjunction. My Fertile Crescent Religion, protect me, oh, please, please protect me! Or I must, just must, WILL rampage. As long as the self-meta-programming card with the dotty dot pattern for “axiom” remains inserted into the slot in your cranium -- inserted by the villains to be ranked -- you will not experience such a universe of experience, and you will be caught in time-bound circumstances of the prisoner's dilemma and rode roughshod upon by free-and-easy riders (be their bikes BSMs, BSFs, BSRs -- or Harleys). This does not mean that BSMFR has to cease: that is a simple-minded ₁T₂-logic response. What has to cease -- and what placement of the urinal in the ARMORY show signified -- is the notion “axiom”. Axiom -- by its very nature as generative generator of emergent theorems and lemmas -- imposes nonsubvertible hierarchy in logical, ontological, temporal, epistemological, and existential precedence: under axiom, dominance relations are inherent and nondisposable. Challenge the notion of precedence! When the last avant-garde Ism has removed the last signifying term, there is the prescriptive designator that made specificity in signification mandatory. Remove that designator, leave “The Cube”, and enter the ManyMinds interpretation of No-Mind manifold, the _µT_m-valued reference space: base-state of Tibetan Tzog-chen. Hierarchy there is, but each nest of the nesting is transparent to all others: all in all, not all against all. The Indeterminate Aesthetic Continuum. You can't stay there long, not these days, not on this planetary microwave oven. But even a visit is well worth effort of the journey -- and if not lifesaving, if not socially redeeming, maybe, just maybe, protection from species extinction. Given that hundreds of thousands of species have already been taken to extinction by axiom-driven human activities, this does not seem much of a doomsayer's exaggeration. Doom has long been upon life forms on this planet, and under the requisite axioms, the time-bound ₁T₂-logic-only mind self-justifies that this is quite all right, part of nature, part of evolution-in-the-time of the time-bound mind, no responsibility of the self my “I” has the ability to identify by virtue of the ₁T₂-logic-only, time-bound mind self-justifying in this fashion the absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct “I” it claims with the designator axiom generating it as an existent. Schizophrenogenic? Stepping “out the door” is leaping off the notion “axiom”. Death-defying leap. Sky-diving without a steerable chute. Bungy-jumping without an elastic chord. Free fall. Ketamine, endogenous antidote to neuron-etching glutamate -- according to the Lilly “tank logs” -- is the freest exploration of free falls. Extreme sports, like war, are psychologically regressed substitutes for the real thing. The very notion of “species”, the very notion of “evolution”, the very notion of “life”, the very notion of… Think this is nihilism, do you? Pure naught? A book of the dead? That very thought, that expression of emotional incapacity on the part of so many, oh so very many, was at root of WWII, and why Poland, by unconscious collective processes of projective identification, was the first to be attacked -- and why the backdoor to Greater China, including Tibet, may be a center of coming conflict.

I've been studying Alexander Karpenko's wonderful book Lukasiewicz's Logics and Prime Numbers, concentrating on the area I have been most interested in: the issue of interpretation. As I have been able to determine from the text, there appears to be three general approaches to interpretation. [1] Degrees between poles: (0, 1) or (T, F) or (on, off) or (function A, function not-A) or (abstract algebra A, abstract algebra not-A) -- semantically resolved by mapping to degrees of numerical ordinality or cardinality, degrees of grey, degrees of fuzziness, degrees of error, degrees of energy density at logic gates, degrees of functional correspondence, degrees of completion (as regards a set, say the primes, functions over a set, algebras of functions over a set, and so on). This “degrees” interpretation I take to be the result of challenging the logic law of excluded middle. [2] T-F sequences and their sets and subsets, as semantically mapped by functions over interpretation sets and subsets, say the primes. Such interpretations introduce the notion of space (implicit in “array” by table, matrix, or tree, for instance) or the notion of time, or both, or the notion of spacetime. [3] Orders of logical-value greater than ₁T₂ indicate time instants at which the implied ₁T₂ proposition under consideration is to be truth-value evaluated. Such interpretation collapses the extra-logical notions introduced by [2] to linear-time sequencing alone (the very definition of a “time instant” requiring, in circular fashion, employment of distinctions mandated by bivalent logic).

There may be a way to subsume [3], [2], and [1], by logical march (actually by involutory decomposition), as special cases of an interpretation based, not only on challenge to the law of excluded middle, but also on challenge to the law of contradiction. What is common to both the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction (more properly to my mind, the law of non-contradiction) are the presuppositions of simple-identity and selfsameness in identity. These presuppositions mandate the imperative: draw a distinction. The notion that truth-value (and its surrogates) is the bedrock of logic is derivative of this imperative and its presuppositions. Authentic challenge to simple-identity and selfsameness in identity means it is impermissible, by properties of the case, to begin with the binary order of logical-value (which cannot exist under the challenge) and recursively expand to the mth order. One must derive, by process of limitation, the binary order from that order wherein non-simple identity and non-selfsameness in identity inhere: transfinite-valued Lukasiewicz's logics (semantically resolved by mapping to some interpretation). Identity is resolvably non-simple and resolvably non-selfsame relative to denumerable transfinite sets, and is elaborately non-simple and elaborately non-selfsame relative to non-denumerable transfinite sets. A further, more concrete, semantic resolution by mapping to an interpretation are the quantum-wave properties of information stored in a holographic plate as related to the time-independent Schrödinger wave equation descriptor. In these interpretations (sets and plates), the whole demonstrably (by Cantor's diagonal proof, and by quantum mechanics) is not greater than the sum of its parts; the whole is the part, the part the whole -- in resolvably non-simple (cannot draw an absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct distinction between whole and part) and in resolvably non-selfsame (no such distinction being drawable, the whole is not-the-whole and the part is not-the-part) fashions. Employment of transfinite-valued Lukasiewicz's logics is required to semantically interpret the conditions by which such properties of identity exist, and what they devolve to as limitations are put into place.

Working with the number theoretic semantic resolution-by-mapping (rather than the more concrete quantum semantic interpretation), the critical involutory junctures, of course, would be those identified by Cantor: [1] that between the non-denumerably transfinite and the denumerably transfinite, and [2] that between the transfinite and the finite. Appearance of the logic law of non-contradiction, according to this hypothetical perspectus, would correspond in the semantic interpretation to demergence at involutory decomposition over juncture [1]; while the logic law of excluded middle would correspond to demergence at involutory decomposition over juncture [2]. Both of these cases of involutory demergence could be studied in detail with numbered Gödel numbers (orders of such numbering of these numbers corresponding to orders of logical-value). My thesis here would be that functionals over finite-valued Lukasiewicz's logics (rooted trees in prime number array, as described in Karpenko's book) would be functionally derivative (and hence informing “Ariadne's threads”) of numbered Gödel numbered functionals over transfinite-valued Lukasiewicz's logics (i.e., Gödel numbered lattice nodes, and lattice strings of numbered Gödel numbers). Since numbered Gödel numbers would, by expansion of Gödel's numbering conventions, correspond to m-logically-valued propositions, this would be the clearest route to semantics (say, the M theory of superstring theory), as such propositions would have many concrete interpretations in the various fields of academic research -- the monetary theory interpretation being, to my mind, an area of current acute urgency, given circumstances of the evolving global crisis.

Were this as straightforward as what I have just said suggests, I think much of it would have been accomplished in the pre-WWII period. However, mathematicians who are to thus explore the logical foundations of non-simple identity and non-selfsameness in identity have to enter and map states of consciousness corresponding to such identity states, if they are to elaborate details of semantic representation. There have been many obstacles to this transpiring. Such states, undoubtedly, are synaesthetic, as the painter Wassily Kandinsky and the composer Arnold Schoenberg supposed. I believe that written mathematical notation is a hindrance, not an aid, to the task. An integrated synaesthetic medium for mathematical notation is required. The attempt made by Kandinsky and Schoenberg petered out in face of the rising cycle of violence. I spent several years studying 12-tone composition part-time and painting in relation to colored-hearing synaesthesia, with the logic issues directly held in mind, but I have never been in circumstances where I could actually make an attempt to develop the medium. Though I did make some progress in learning how to think about the issues. Biofeedback and other contemporary technologies -- computer gaming, for instance -- could be extremely useful, if properly employed. Though much of what is technologically required has recently for the first time become available, as far as I know there is no attempt being made to pursue purposes such as those described above. It appears quite likely that, again, the rising cycle of violence will nip such nascent developments in the bud. And over the very same issues as last time!

Thank you for bringing Coetzee's use of “all for all” (J. M. Coetzee, “Love and Walt Whitman”, The New York Review of Books, September 22, 2005, p. 26) to my attention as juxtaposed to my use of “all in all” in discourse on the nature of animistic identity transparency. The impetus for both my and Coetzee's usage is clearly the “all against all” of Hobbes' Leviathan. "For what is the heart, but a spring?" to quote Hobbes' preface from memory. Whitman's meaning for “democracy” -- “adhesive democracy” in Coetzee's review article -- is what I would deem a soft form of animistic identity transparency. This is part of the reason why I have to laugh when people exclaim that my point of view is profoundly un-American -- Whitman being something like the national poet and me having been deeply influenced by Leaves of Grass as a sophomore in high school. I think, whatever its merits relative to Whitman's personal preferences, the homoerotic aspect is much overworked -- overworked as a way to keep at bay implications of Whitman's capacity for voluntary dissociation, a capacity possibly as elaborate as that of William Blake. “Song of Myself”, for instance, is all about voluntary dissociation, and Whitman's term “my other I am” is hardly exclusively, primarily, or even necessarily homoerotic in reference. Moreover, “Song for Occupations” is intimately related on the psychological level to the voluntary dissociation involved in “Song of Myself”. Good Work (to use the title of a book by E. F. Schumacher and elaborated upon by Peter Gillingham) according to the Whitmanian conception is work that facilitates cosmic immersion, and cosmic immersion cannot take place without the voluntary dissociation accompanying entry upon animistic identity transparency. Yeoman tree gardening (Baumgardner being my personal matronymic, and in my south-central Pennsylvanian Greencastle evangelical heritage, even to the point of inculcating my knowing kabbalist inclination, an inclination attributed to Whitman as unknowing: clouds of unknowing over trees of life, rooted trees in prime number array) when approached in the manner of a Zen swordmaker is just such dissociative “good work” through concentration in the infinite regress of self-observation. Of my fifteen years as a professional nurseryman, I'd say about five of them fell into this category: digging as meditation (hold simultaneously in awareness for duration of digging: it digs; my body digs; the my body of my self digs; the self of myself watches the my of my body as it digs; and so on back through all the other “my other I am's” watching The Watcher, watching The Watcher watch here in Franklin County, in Pennsylvania, in America, in North America, on planet Earth, in the solar system, in the Milky Way galaxy…). Just try to hold all that instantaneously in awareness without losing any of the involved hypercathexes to identification with the act of digging. Digging trees piece-work, as fast as you can move. Bet you can't do it without mastering differential relaxation and abandoning psychological commitments to ₁T₂ logic! Truthfully, this is one of the primary means by which one overcomes attachment to linear-time-bound mind. If you study the literature on early-childhood “development” you will see that such time is largely automatized by habituation of muscles in movement; deautomatization of linear-time-bound mind would, therefore, best be accomplished by returning attention cathexes to muscles in movement. Extra-ocular muscles in eye-movement reprogramming, being one component of the rhythm-entraining task: walking, digging, running, pounding, poking, lifting, bending, planting, reaping, weaving, cutting, gouging… After principles of proletariat-food production and marketing began in earnest to remake the American nursery business, such meditative working became less and less possible. Poof! Good work gone, and along with it quality of immediacy; no song of this occupation left to sing. And I bet good work will not come back to this occupation until m-logically-valued _µT_m LETS monetary units are widely implemented.

My problem has been -- since year-eight, possibly before -- that I did not come to consideration of problems in modal-theoretical logics while at the academy, or even in high school; I came to them experientially, in my-head-in-the-world. Rural Japanese women of postwar Kyushu -- a Shintoist go-between grandmother concerned with family histories of spirit possession, in particular -- were my first instructors at logic. From the beginnings of my engagement, I knew in my gut there are no generalized bounds to logic -- pure logic -- the logic of consciousness -- pure consciousness -- unsullied by concrete contents. First-order logic of the Pure Land. This was intuitively given, but, nonetheless, clearly a logical extension from direct immediate experience. And this was shared experience, not merely my own personal pathology. Mutually acknowledged and consensuated shared experience: sitting there under the sacred pine watching the wind rustle the rice (the spot where the old pine once grew, so many years later, as late as 1990, marked still by a standing stone with characters etched upon it). Watching leaves of grass grow, as such observation once was done in Asia (those leaves, as straw, eventually being twisted into the Shintoist rope, a twistor-pencil of Bennett skew-parallels, a Clifford-bundle connection of fiber-valued functions over multi-sheeted Shintoist kami dust: explicitly formalized in cosmologies of the possession cults, and obsessed upon for a lifetime by Yayoi Kusama). Animistic identity transparency is not a particular state of the subject, as the Westerner accustomed to inanimate objects instinctively supposes, but a state of the {object : subject :: subject : object} occasion in undivided gestalt:

…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.

These words, describing the state of identity transparency characteristic of peasant animism, were written in 1912 by the French anthropologist, Giran, (Magie et Religions Annamites, Paris: Challamel) and translated into English during the 1960s by Vietnamese scholar Nguyen Khac Kham, translated while he conducted comparative research in Han, medieval Japanese, and Sino-Vietnamese on rice ritual as practiced in old China, Japan, and Vietnam. Sino-Vietnamese (Chinese characters read into Vietnamese sounds, in manner similar to Japanese reading of kanji) being a long time ago, before chu nom (demotic script borrowed and adapted from Chinese characters to transcribe the Vietnamese language as spoken: only about 30 people in the world today can read it competently, its characters having been created from fused Chinese characters and similar topological transforms), and much before Portuguese-priest-created chu quoc ngu (modern Arabic alphabetic-diacritic script for Vietnamese).

At the very moment I was experientially learning about these animistic states -- still aged eight -- I was climbing the hills behind “my” circa-1890s Midori Gaoka farmhouse, behind the Shinto shrine, behind the Buddhist temple, all the way up to the caves at the foot of the Ashiya AFB flight line where the C-119s were taking off in wave after wave to re-supply Dien Bien Phu. The C-119s flew in their huge ducky formations during April and May, while I turned nine on 14 June, Flag Day. And in the same period -- the following year, probably -- I was taken along by my bomber pilot father, riding in our big yellow '53 Buick sedan, to view the A-bomb sites. This juxtaposition of sacred states with desecrated places was of such humongous import I could not process it. But I knew it was about me, whatever my me might be. Upon leaving Japan during 1956 and being plunked back into American society, my Japanese memory store was rapidly compacted and quenched. From hands of sylphs in Midori Gaoka (verdant hills) returned to Green Castle in the sylvan lands of tree gardeners and the singers of Penn.

When J. G. Bennett, during the 1950s, elaborated his theory of the “diversely identical” with a technical account of “pencils of skew-parallels” and “skew-cubes” (a pagan, tribal, Germanic thesis of Angles, if I've ever seen one: those damned Odin worshippers again! springing up to challenge the Christian Celts… uh, well, Christian by the time of the Germanic colonization of Britain), he did not reference Clifford algebras -- and for the very good reason that semantic imports of the two mathematical theories significantly differ. Nor did Bennett make reference to m-valued logics, surely because prevailing interpretation of such logics suggested they had nothing to do with his notion of the diversely identical. When I came across Bennett's idea during the last weeks of 1963, I had never heard of Clifford algebras or m-valued logics, but this did not hinder my immediate recognition of the relevance of the diversely identical to making sense out of the animistic states I had experienced a decade earlier roaming Japanese paddy dikes -- states I had sustained residuals of under the rubric “my Plexiglas wall experiences”. When, four years after discovery of Bennett, I roamed Vietnamese paddy dikes of the Mekong delta, I was rapidly induced, by smell mostly, into intense acute remembrance of many details about my childhood in Japan I had until then forgotten. And this remembrance made me ponder deeply upon what it was, really, Bennett's idea actually encompassed. As a teen, and later as an adult, I found, whatever memories of Japan I had that did not confirm the postwar American persona were deemed false memories. I was forced to struggle with the issue of whether or not I was a sufferer of “substitute memory” until well after the writing of MOON was completed. In the end, so many details of my memories were confirmed, I stopped serious entertainment of the thesis of substitute memory.

Because I already had an elaborate experiential orientation to the issues in interpretation of pure logic and its relation to what I experientially knew to be various modes of human reasons, and because these issues I, again experientially, knew -- by being long subjected to imputations of substitute memory, and much of similar nature -- to be intimately involved with origins of total war, employment of A-bombs, and rabid turnings upon effector organs like Oppenheimer's and the like, I could not possibly have allowed myself to sit in classrooms and listen to those who talk of human reason as if there were only one -- theirs -- and how all that has been recently discovered only confirms what “we” (coercive we) have for so long known about this human reason and its internal time consciousness -- what Husserl called an “existing time”, a “given time” -- and how pure logic, if it has any relation to this human reason, that relation must not be very elaborate, even when time be a given time to the consciousness which must also have a not very elaborate relation to pure consciousness, whatever that might be, and the given time of internal time consciousness might, therefore, be, itself, considerably less than given to pure consciousness, which might have its own sort of time, a time or times less than given to internal time consciousness, which is not pure consciousness, these less than given times having their own more pure logics, operator logics, possibly, for, knowing this experientially, by baud-rate rheostat, in immediacy, i.e., that the diversely identical in animistic identity transparency is less particular and more universal than permitted into awareness by Husserlian internal time consciousness, it was not possible to seriously entertain the notion that logic grows by recursive extension over linear-time, the given time to human reason, that human reason which is theirs.

But there is no such thing as time evolution of a quantum system! What there is is devolution to passive linear-time in a quantum system. Writing quantum mechanics is where the time evolution comes in: the Dirac rewrite of the time-independent Schrödinger wave equation was quantum mechanics enculturated and consensuated, quantum mechanics made acceptable to the life-world, but not allowed into sociologies of that life-world. Reading quantum mechanics is even more a no-no for postmodernism than it was for modernism. And what do you think the new sociological and sociobiological paradigms of supersociality, hypersociality, ultrasociality, cooperativity, cohesiveness, altruism, community, metaethnicity, memes, cognitive mutations amongst discrete absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct actors -- not rational-choice agents maximizing utility functions over zero-sum self-interest games -- are all about? About how the all-against-all state of nature got transformed into the all-for-all cooperative equilibrium which is the nature of the nation-state capable of success at a mass warfare become total war -- and how this time evolution was justified, necessary, even inevitable? Before this time evolution, it was all oh-so-brutish, little more than all-against-all club-wielding chimps at African genesis, the ethological ideal, kin-selecting, group-selecting, imitating imitations into culture-group selection in imitation of nature's natural selection of random imitations, uh, mutations, evolving from sociologies controlled by The Punisher to sociologies controlled by The Moralist. Asocial to antisocial to presocial to prosocial to oh-so-social to supersociality, hypersociality, ultrasociality, suprasociality to postsocial to metasocial. Cohesiveness through altruistic selfishness and selfish altruism. Cooperation through coercion veiled as moralistic punishment and punishing moral sanction. Intelligence through the blind stupidity of indiscriminant imitation selected, naturally -- until selected imitation of the indiscriminant sociologically-evolved higher intelligence, an intelligence capable of a discriminating imitative selection. Cohesion, cooperation, altruism as the positive effects of murder as group selection by absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct people of other wholly-discrete people because of the numerical limitations to social channel capacity under the technology of face-to-face and the constraints of cognitive overload sans capacity for animistic identity transparency and concomitant time dilation. Time evolution in non-quantum sociologies: linear and nonlinear (Newtonian) dynamics of chaordic complexity. I say this is continued Machiavellian academic dissembling by judicious data selection, naturally, by, that is, separation of data from noise, by pattern imposition so as to sustain the enculturated collective hallucination of an objective linear-time evolution such that atemporal quantum mechanics can be barred from sociologies of the life-world by redirecting individualistic ₁T₂ rational-choice analytics away from the risk of incorporating the _µT_m logics of Schrödinger's identity-transparent time-independent wave equation.

I persist in using Post's T-notation because, as far as I am able to understand, current treatments of Lukasiewicz's logics L_n+1 and L_¥ and L_À-null and extensions are handled as if they were cardinalities of ₁T_m, not of _µT_m. It is not just that the number, m, of available values to a given proposition is multivariate, but so also the number, µ, of permitted correct answers to a given proposition, such that one can have myriad circumstances like ₅T₂₄ and _À-nullT_À-one logics and so on. These sorts of logical-value orders are possibly impossible (modally speaking) to make truth-value sense of, while quite naturally so with regard to animistic-quantum non-simple and non-selfsame identity transparency.

But script came before speaking, not after! It was the writing of script -- glyph, hieroglyph, pictograph, ideograph, arabesque -- that came after speaking. Before and after in this semiotic context, however, have to be properly sorted out. Musculpt was logically “before” script was ontologically “before” speaking, while writing of script was temporally after speaking socio-psycho-neurologically realized the idea of passive passing time as consensuated experience. Logically and ontologically “before” linear-time is, the brain is not contained by the brain. This time-idea was epiphenomenal to collapse in order of logical-value -- ontologically available to conscious awareness as the superposed nesting of order-nests -- decomposed and transposed by collective projective-identification as the basis of role stratification and segmentary organizational formats. As, as, as, as, as: symbolic interactionism in genesis of linear-time-bound mind. The Hebraic Tenen-superstrings, Gödel numbered, DNA looped, enfolded, and sounded, are over multi-sheeted kami dust; the Greek gematria point-sets (from where do you think Louis Braille got his idea for the braille alphabet?) are over multi-sheeted kami dust; the Sanskrit yantras are over multi-sheeted kami dust (Aurobindo's “warm golden dust of Supermind”). The mantra is over the yantra as tone mandala. Ganzfeld. The pixels ontologically demerge “before” pixel patterns parade over pixels. And the multiple sheets of kami dust (a Borel set over a stack of multi-sheeted Riemann surfaces) are a Pereira layered-transparent, the superposed composite transparency being the base state of Tzog-chen. The notion of a field is not general enough, not only to be unified, but also to be morphogenetic: logically and ontologically “before” form is in process, form is. “Before” ontologically “before” is logically “before”, and “before” logically “before” is “before” precedence qua precedence (logical, ontological, temporal) is: axiom-free first-order pure logic over the base state of Tzog-chen.

Yeah, that Padoa's principle: use interpretations to develop insight into deductive theories. I know some history of logic, too; but let's stay away from that a moment -- then get back to it, perhaps. Derek, in his journals published in MOON, uses the term “psycho-ideograph”. This is dangerous territory! On an LRRP for BDA -- long-range reconnaissance patrol for bomb damage assessment, tripping over seismic sensors all along the way. Deeeetectors of those, any those, who would engage in cultural denial. How do you think the world wars got going, anyhow? Could get burned, uh, could get your CNS burned. Could get convulsed. Just ask any beautiful mind about dangers of visual abduction. A “psycho-ideograph” is visual abduction upon projective-identification by means of identity transparency. Talk to any contemporary artist, any art historian focused on modern times, and you will hear: denial, denial, denial. These people, like psychiatrists, have long since become detectors, seismic sensors, part of the prevailing Tonari Gumi, Jikeidan, pao-chia chi tu: the self-defense corps brought up against the Mongols and later deteriorated to the Triads, first ears of the herd raised to threat on the wind. Assertion of the defenders: not a chance Picasso, Braque actually saw what they painted. In the end, I had to agree with them: probably true, given what Picasso did with his surpassing talent after Analytical Cubism (about the same sort of thing Stravinsky did after “Rite of Spring”). It had to be someone like Alfred Jarry… probably was Alfred Jarry. At just the very exact time L was laying the foundations for Lukasiewicz's logics, _µT_m, Picasso and Braque were painting them, painting them as AJ saw them, and since P&B didn't see them, they noticed a shape-of-style similarity to African sculpture and explained that way -- not them, didn't explain them, which they didn't know about for not seeing them, like AJ likely did -- what they painted but didn't actually see. Then along comes Jean Gebser, talks to them all, them being those, those avant-garde types who would issue cultural denials -- except AJ, of course, AJ, the prime suspect, Gebser clearly didn't talk to -- and then he starts essaying about the “acute energy of time”, of “structures rendered transparent”, of the body having become transparent and therefore no longer in Greek muscle-mode, of “the emergent transparency of time”, of “the concretion of time”: all in due course subsumed to “diaphaneity” and generalized from painting to music to architecture. Derek, fortunately, didn't read Gebser's The Ever-Present Origin until after The Moon of Hoa Binh had been written, and decades after he had begun using the term “identity transparency”. How do you think Irene “Rice” Pereira came up with the notion of a “layered-transparent”? By reading Dilthey? By reading Brentano? By reading Husserl's Ideas of Pure Phenomenology, first aired in a journal during 1913, just as the urinal was being placed in the Armory show? I guess, for some deranged mind, ₁T₂ logic could be regarded just one more form of water sports: Post's T-notation is rather phallic, wouldn't you say? For those of Freudian persuasion -- and this was the heyday, you know -- waking dreams, the psychopathologies of everyday life, often prefigure what the unconscious subsequently brings forth. Rice came up with the layered-transparent by reading Husserl on transcendental logic (first aired in 1929, as the NY stock market was crashing)? Certainly Rice read Husserl in coming up with her Transcendental Formal Logic of the Infinite. She may even have read Karl Jaspers' Psychology of World-Views in visualizing how to see through such views by way of seeing the seeing in layered-transparent. After Rice, Joe Goode has done more with “looking through” than anyone else. But Rice surely, almost certainly, just had to have had, the layered-transparent well in her painterly hand long before seeking out Husserl's writings on transcendental logic and pure consciousness (obviously borrowed without attribution from the East by Husserl in reading “The Great Books of the East” translated by Max Müller) as a way of penetrating implications of what she had for so long held firmly in her hand, her painterly hand.

So, what is a “psycho-ideograph”? In pouring over The Ever-Present Origin, I can find no evidence of such an “ideograph”, in spite of the fact that Gebser uses the term “eidetic”. This absence is how I know Gebser did not interview Alfred Jarry. Quote Derek's Journals written 20 years before the reading of Gebser (MOON, Vol. 2, pp. 597-8):

The superposed imagery of Analytical Cubism pictures the perceptual process of phenomenological constitution: how the “socialization of cognition” is projected onto the hyletic data (studied by the Impressionist) to constitute the constant object. Object constancy may be characterized by the perceptual gestalt which allows the object to be recognized as selfsame and enduring, despite the infinite variety of percept-patterns (“profiles”: Abschattungen) through which we apprehend it. In movement around the object, we can apprehend it from as many perspectives as we wish -- potentially infinite. There must be a subliminal gestalt-of-superposition allowing us to recognize all these images-of-differing-perspective as signifying the constant object… Husserl's “eidetic reduction” addresses itself, not to this perceptual gestalt per se, but to the essence, unity, or Platonic “form” underlying this holistic pattern which “fixes” the object as constant. The primary purpose of Musculpt studies is to codify the system of rules governing the involutive forming of object-constancy-gestalts for given classes of objects (Husserl's “horizons”). Musculpt seeks to discover the complete semiotic structure of this idealized form language.

Now, Gebser does not overtly apply the “profiles” and “horizons” of Husserl's “eidetic reduction” to the Analytical Cubist object in arriving at his notion of “the concretion of time”. What Gebser has to say about this is sufficiently vague as to strongly suggest lack of direct experience and perceptual immediacy. A similar suspicion must be entertained even with regard to Husserl, for he makes mistakes no direct experiencer, no immediate perceiver would have made. Though, and likely because, Husserl, early on, had deductively theorized that ontological constitution of the spatial object presupposes constitution by time, at the very beginning of his 1928 (first German edition) The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness -- despite phenomenological epoché, which, by Husserl's counsel, should doubt every assumption, stipulation, conviction, axiom -- he posits an “existing time”, a “given time”, and the remainder of the book is deduction (mistakenly designated phenomenological description) of the implications of this posit. This mistake, and it is a mistake, transpired from having deductively, and uncritically, embraced Brentano's notion of intentionality and his associated idea that time is in remembering (not in Platonic amnesis of _µT_m ontological transparency in identity). As if Husserl were actually doing reductive phenomenology in lived experiences of time, rather than merely thinking about what it must be! No-mind is not the absence of mind; it is presence of the multivalue. And nothing quenches awareness of the multivalue so rapidly as intentionality: by direct experience, no one seriously engaged in Greek Orthodox Philokalia (walking mediation) or Japanese Zazen or Ceylonese Vipassana would ever suggest otherwise. Passive, passing linear-time is not an “existing time”, not a “given time”: just like the constituted spatial object, linear-time, too, is constituted, indeed, is but one of the m-constituted chronotopologies available to consciousnesses under _µT_m logics. This is directly experiential in ontic immediacy by “psycho-ideograph”, as is Rice Pereira's layered-transparent.

Just as Pereira surely went in search of Husserl only after long experiential struggles with the layered-transparent, so Derek began studying Analytical Cubism and Husserl only after long experiential struggles with “psycho-ideographs”. Here is the experiential qua perceptual qua proprioceptive conclusion, from which we will work backwards to the “psycho-ideograph”: _µT_m = _profilesT_horizons. The pure logic of pure consciousness is in pure feeling, and pure feeling alone (that feeling unsullied by concrete contents; the “pure feeling” to which Kandinsky referred). So-called “first-order logic” -- which, not by recursive generation but by involutory decomposition, is actually the highest order transfinite-valued logic -- decomposes to object constitution over the hyletic data, which is available to consciousness as Ganzfeld. Points of entry: German Einfuhlung, English generative empathy, Japanese amae. The horizons of the constituted object are the identity states available and the profiles are the identity states actualized. Designation of availability and actualization transpires by decompositional involutes under the good offices of three-fold operator-time. The “stages” by which this transpires are directly perceivable, and, grouped together, they have been designated the corpus of Samadhi states. Notice I am making no deductive arguments here; I am only reporting the results of inductive exploration. Disengaging from the life-world of constituted single-valued objects and single-valued subjects -- by whatever form of meditative self-as-object observation and/or object-as-self observation, in full recognition of the subject-(physical)object level of the transference and involved projective-identification -- immediately involves deautomatization, by reversion of attention cathexes back upon themselves, inculcated and expressed as autogenic brain discharge phenomena, the first subjective feedback of which into the visual cinema likely will be dynamic polymorph color fields (see for a technical account: W. Luthe, “The Clinical Significance of Visual Phenomena During the Autogenic State”, in Wolfgang Luthe, editor, Autogenic Training: Correlationes Psychosomaticae, Grune and Stratton, 1965). After the color fields, further elaboration will likely involve images similar to those portrayed in the films of Gordon Belson and/or the so-called anti-Expressionist paintings of Jules Olitski. From there, the Cinerama can develop along many lines into concrete object-world imagery. If one enters the precipitative state of disengagement through long pursuit of a discipline, a practice -- say painting or some variant of Philokalia or possibly a combination of the two -- then “psycho-ideographs” might appear in the visual field. Quoting Derek's reportage (MOON, Vol. 2., p. 662):

No-time, pure duration. Image hanging there. Girl he is talking to. Distorted. Grotesque. Agonized. The image captures the essence of her inner state. Identified. Worry. Fear. Self-alienated. Hurt. Lost. Pawing at love. He is seeing the inside of things! A psycho-ideogram. Click. Click. Click. Sequence of frozen images. All psycho-ideographically authentic. Viewing point superimpositions. There are object images composite of differing vantage points superimposed. He has “walked around” the object and viewed it from many different times, then received the composite image. Many different times are contained in an “instant” of pure duration? Either that, or he has moved around the object through space in no-time. He is simultaneously in a number of different points at one-time? Quantum paradoxical Cubism! Fast-frame sequence, then slow-down. Variable time fluctuations. Slow motion action. He can see it before it gets here. The action doesn't happen where it happens? It comes from somewhere else? The event that happens here happened somewhere else before? How can he see it coming here from there? Is he seeing the seeing? What is this before of the happening he is seeing? Is he seeing the how of a happening as if it were a where? Do we often mistake hows for wheres and wheres for hows? Are a lot of paradoxes just how-where boggles?

Hows for wheres, and even whats for whens, get sorted out when _µT_m is seen to correspond to the Padoa-incited interpretation: _profilesT_horizons. This is not exactly in accordance with the rules of function and argument in Frege's formula language, but that's another story, a story having to do with the history of logic.

Oh, yes. Very perceptive, very perceptive. This is heartening. Thank you. Indeed, I am, and for long have been, suggesting that roles are to norms as profiles are to horizons -- reflecting object-subject complementarity. Logically speaking. That is why Thuy Tien and Derek in MOON treated m-valued roles and norms on a stack of Riemann surfaces, and speculated as to how this so-called “mere parallelism” (to Weberian sociologists) was, in fact, a driver of self-organization in the Viet Cong political infrastructure (“terrorist network”). Degree of collective transparency to the superposition is a measure of self-organizational competency, and one argument for the necessity to implement m-logically-valued monetary units. The Japanese language has a most elaborate vocabulary in this domain: giri, ninjo, and so on. Incorporation of identity by keiretsu is an attempt along these lines, but a predatory attempt, and is an application on the level of kata (prescriptive rule or recipe), rather than kakureta-kata (archetype). A good principle, applied in the wrong place, at the wrong level, instead of being facilitative, is coercive. In this conception, a gestalt-of-superposition is required for object-constitution and for normotification (i.e., from “normotic”) of the norm, whereas in consensus quantum theory a collapse of superposition of the wave-function is required. This 180-degree disjunction is very significant because at the critical juncture in the argument of Hugh Everett's breakaway paper on the notion of “relative-state” he says that in our experience objects always have definite positions, and then, using this statement as a pivot, he launches into the von Neumann formalism in order to demonstrate how what the notion “relative-state” denotes-connotes is really nothing different than we already knew via the consensus interpretation -- just like his mentors Wheeler and Bohr had always thought. The perfect Ph.D. dissertation to launch a career with the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group, the Pentagon! Now, our notion, of neuronal and perineural DNA-mediated autogenic brain discharge as spontaneous localization at quantum measurement, presupposes what we already know to be the case: the gestalt-of-superposition of the fully constituted Cubistic object under concretion of time is not conscious to ₁T₂-logic ratiocination by glutamate-etched brains participating in a life-world constellated by normotic segmentary organizations. Fully-conscious gran mal seizures like those of Swedenborg and Cantor are generally required to regain conscious access to _µT_m processing (currently dissembled as quantum phase-digit computing, yet one more example of the quenching effected by Brentano intentionality).

I didn't mention Kant's Critique of Pure Reason because, though Rice Pereira certainly studied Kant, I don't believe it was from Kant that she actually took her lead. In Kant's introduction to the idea of transcendental logic he clearly states that there can only be pure intuition and pure conception, that one cannot be subsumed to the other, that pure intuitions and pure conceptions are a priori possible and that matters empirical are always and only a posteriori. Though Kant goes on to distinguish the “science” of aesthetics from the “science” of logic, I do not believe that his notion of pure intuition actually incorporates what Kandinsky used the term “pure feeling” to denote. For Kant, pure intuition is reception of the (Platonic) form through which something is intuited uncorrupted by presence of sensation. Sensation is about what presence of an actual object means, about what, aesthetically speaking, can be called “shape of style” as opposed to “form”. But “pure feeling” to my understanding has nothing to do with Platonic form, or equivalently, it is about the Platonic form of nothing. A priori cognition of “warm golden dust of supermind”, of Kusama-dots, of kami dust over the layered-transparent is by pure feeling, not by pure intuition of the representation of anything or of representation per se. Pure feeling is not about representation; it is about what permits representation. Kant was so locked into his notion of categories of understanding, he had no “place” for the “indeterminate aesthetic continuum”. True, Pereira titled her book as regards “transcendental formal logic”, indicating a logic of Platonic forms, but she also titled as regards “infinite”: The Transcendental Formal Logic of the Infinite. Use of the term “the infinite” came from her “reception” of the layered transparent, an indeterminate aesthetic continuum, which “reception” I maintain was not by Kantian pure intuition, but by Kandinsky's “pure feeling”, the two “receptions” being incommensurate. And “reception”, in actual point of fact, is not like a ball arriving at a glove; it is an emptying of everything in the glove: only once the glove is completely empty is there pure feeling. Pure intuition and pure conception are both about representation, meaning that in both cases the glove is not empty. Pereira's contribution was not to restate Kant, or to restate Husserl; it was to indicate the framework conditions permitting logics of form.

And use of the term “first-order logic” is no less problematic than use of the term “pure logic”. Term; predicate; atomic statement; sentential formula; variables free and unfree… Russell's On Logical Atomism: meaning dissolves as orders of logical-value increase in number (covert attack on Cantor, and by extension on Pereira's titling “of the infinite”). First-order logic, in the usual conception, is about quantifiable recursive logics only: one can put a number on each of the axioms for the logic. Existential quantifier: “There exists” da-dah such that… “It is the case” in the domain of da-dahs circumscribed that Axiom A… da-dah, da-dah, da-dah: the first-order predicate sentences, which are the axioms. “It is the case” in the domain circumscribed by Axioms A, B, C… that… da-dah, da-dah, da-dah: the second order predicate sentences of the system axiomitized by extension from the first-order logic… The prevailing notion of first-order logic is inextricably tied to ₁T₂ logic and/or ₁T₂-logic-related interpretations of _µT_m logics. Truth-value is the foundational notion, whatever derivative interpretations of logical-value employed. Indeed, _µT_m logics are regarded as being recursively generated by ₁T₂ logic as additional orders over the corpus of orders of ₁T₂ predicate sentences. But in realms of the layered-transparent, this is not at all the case. From Kandinsky-Pereira pure feeling, first-order predicate sentences of ₁T₂ logic, i.e., axioms, are the last-and-abysmal-order logic decomposed from transfinitely infinite-valued _µT_m logics (recursion has to do with consensual construction of linear-time). Axioms are the last-finite, that finite which freezes a possible world from its logic mode, not that which “stops the world”. Stopping the world is emptying the glove. Prevailing logic, truth-valued ₁T₂ logic and its recursively generated corpus of predicate orders and orders over such orders, is All-(that)-Is-(for-the)-Ego: everything starts from the egoic perspective, from some quantifiable da-dah. Imperatives like “There exists” and “It is the case”: Ego as God in foundation of logic, ₁T₂ logic. But this is projective identification, the psychological transference on the subject-(physical)object level constellated by ₁T₂-logic-bound mind. God works in mysterious ways, ways not ways of the ego made Ego. All-that-Is does not start with an “is”; it does not even start with an “is-not” or even an “All that Is-not”. Pure feeling dumps this da-dah perspective altogether; its logics are rooted Elsewhere. And given that axioms are the last-finite, no proofs, no demonstrations, no constructions suffice. “It” -- and who is to “say” what, where, how, when “it”… (“Eight No's” here) -- does not start with zero does not equal infinity; it starts with zero equals infinity -- which means there is no start “for all”: universal quantifiers are “represented” within universal qualifiers “set” within pure feelings “disposed” within and over the layered-transparent “indisposed” upon… the base state of Tzog-chen.

In The Moon of Hoa Binh, Derek talks about “non-self-identical numbers” as being incumbent upon animistic identity transparency, which, according to his understanding, requires numbered Gödel-numbered _µT_m logics to codify. Derek posits this notion of number in raising questions about formalization of inner Musculpt (preliminary to systematic “exteriorization”), and in so positing he addresses the issue Frege designated “the identity conditions of numbers”. Derek's orientation to this issue is not that of Frege, not that of Tarski, and not that of G. Y. Sher (“A New Solution to the Problem of Truth [Or: How General and How Substantive is Tarski's Theory of Truth?]”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 61, No. 3, September 1996: a paper often referred to under the rubric “Did Tarski Commit 'Tarski's Fallacy'?”). In considering by direct entry into animistic states of consciousness, that there is not only ₁T₂ absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct identity, but _µT_m states of identity transparency, Derek arrived at a notion of number that does not fulfill general or substantive conditions of number as understood by Frege, Tarski, or Gila Sher. In Derek's conception, selfsame numbers demerge from non-selfsame numbers in the same way that denumerable sets decompose from non-denumerable sets. Each number is a shadow of every number; each selfsame number is a shape-of-style representation of its formal presentation. Profiles (the “re”) and horizons (the “pre”) of number. How could it be otherwise, if set theory is understood as underlying number theory? Atomism has to have something to atomize into Cantor dust (halve a hunk of line; halve a half a hunk of line…). If number as a Padoa's interpretation of the God's truth has identity conditions, then so must truth-itself. Conditions of identity-itself are the foundations of logics, not conditions of truth and its values.

Seeking reassurance by relying on the Gödel-unreliable is simply to acquiesce to the poor path chosen by the (psychological) + (temperamental) + (physical type) weighted superposition imposed by nature / nurture in the particular case of logician-scientists (first function = thinking [super] least developed = feeling [super] second function = intuition [super] least-but-one developed = sensation). Sensation regressed. Feeling hyper-regressed. Medical intervention / (Sensation crashing in = extreme disorientation) + (Feeling crashing in = psychosis-like interlude) = permanent disability. {(Subpropositional [nominal]) + (propositional)} / the meanings meaning means = pure logic, in Kantian-Husserlian conception. (Sense ¹ nonsense) - (sense = nonsense) = pure grammar. LOGIC - logic = logical consistency of (Sense ¹ nonsense). Inferential logical consistency (order ₁T₂) in syllogistic Aristotelian march, i.e., the logical consistency of what makes sense (to a ₁T₂ mind), premises universal validity of the law of non-contradiction -- which is a tacit assumption, by no means a lemma, of, for instance, studies of visual illusions by scientist-logicians (first function = thinking [super] least developed = feeling [super] second function = intuition [super] least-but-one developed = sensation [prerequisite to studies in vision, not on or of vision]). (No-sensation crashing in ¹ extreme disorientation) + (No-feeling crashing in ¹ psychosis-like interlude) - Medical intervention = {(normotic science) + (science by normotics) - (science of the normotic)} + {(₁T₂ logic only) / (₁T₂-logic Gödel-unreliabilities)}. And this simultaneous set of differencing equations ties Weltanschauung exclusively to the serial properties of speakable-word-type languages, falling away with tonal languages, falling further away with tonal-ideographic languages, evaporating altogether with sonic-visioning-language dolphin-speak, Bushman's sound, Hottentot's click-talk, whale song, bird song, bee dance, Lal Ded dance over naked Turangalila, songlines, dreamtime quantum-wave properties of superconductant DNA as carriers of universal Montesquieu-Tenen topology-grammar underlying the pure grammars of impure grammars of first-orders of the various logics, _µT_m. There is a psycho-neuro-immunologically determined critical phase for language learning of any speakable language, wherein any such language is learned with ease -- not to mention bird song and navigational capabilities of homing species -- because superconductivity of the p-electron gas core of nuclear neuronal DNA is progressively quenched (in the human case, beginning in the womb) as prescriptive enculturation clamps linear-time-only upon the brain as one class of lacuna. Mere presence of ferrite in bird brain, in and of itself, does not explain navigational capabilities or intergenerational transmission at critical phase of such capabilities. As any navigator knows… as anyone at witness to development of autopilot knows… as any user of flight simulator knows… Assuming that a severely brain-damaged species is not irreparably damaged, MUSCULPT is the programmatic initialization instructor code for lacuna eradication. Following late-Wittgenstein, of “Stoppages” we will not speak, exteriorized Musculpt having yet to be initialized in consensuated ₁T₂-logic real-number linear-time.

Though I definitely have an interest in m-logically-valued monetary units, I am not money motivated. Before, after, over and above, aside from consideration of what happened to Sam Adams of Westmoreland-vs-CBS fame for attempting to publicize the tip of an iceberg with psychotic referents at depth, and aside from what happened to Steven Hawking's attempts to popularize a very watered-down and thoroughly benign version of hypercomplex-imaginary 3-fold operator-time (published in a paper on superconductant DNA in 1979), I've never entertained the notion of being a career-oriented person; I've been understanding-oriented, and not knowledge acquisitive. Everything that could be done, I have done to prevent a career from coming between me and my Doppelgangers. As near-death experience incontrovertibly informs, there are far larger matters than this life, this particular descent into hell with its assignments and assignations. I went into the Cornell mathematics library in 1975 specifically looking for something like m-valued logics; I did not just happen upon them. So, why, during the ensuing 30 years have I not become an expert at such logics? For the same reason I did not become a master in the Ikenobo School of Ikebana (Japanese flower arranging). Though for three years during the early-1970s I intensively studied under the master-but-one, and then President of the American Ikebana Society, I was not interested in mastering arrangement kata (recipes), or even to become capable to so instinctually internalize kata as to execute in total spontaneity arrangements that effortlessly fulfill the kata, while making some subtle modifications, such that focus of the practice moves onto the level of kata of rules (as opposed to the rules of kata). My interest has been in the kakureta kata (archetypes) governing kata of rules which govern the rules of kata. What, by contrast, the Japanese have done in face of cross-cultural contacts, is to try to eclectically incorporate on the basis of aesthetic design criteria, at the level of kata alone, elements of threat so as to depotentiate them: this chosen mode of assimilation has been the source of a series of collective disasters back to the Age of the Gods -- and is likely to be responsible for further disasters in the near future. Moreover, birds of a feather, those foreigners who have assimilated Japanese culture on the kata level alone have been the only foreigners Japan has at all authentically embraced. California roll: monkey-brain sushi run through a blender made in America, wrapped in a wall of imported rice. I first studied Ikebana sitting next to my mother at the low table overlooking the naka niwa (inside garden: garden inside the wall [of the stomach = naka], an interesting notion in and of itself) of the house my family occupied in Midori Gaoka, 1953-6. As early as that, I knew explicitly, even if I could not have articulated it, that kata did not interest me, and that learning them, however well, would take me no place I wanted to go. Why? How? Because by then -- 8-9-10-11 years of age -- I had had many surrogate near-death experiences. We had moved every year or six months, sometimes even three months, since my birth. A two-year-old, a three-year-old, a five-year-old, closely bonded to a peer, experiences such a move as functionally equivalent to death of peer-self. In most cases, the peer will never be seen again: with the peer-bond elaborate, this is a death of self. Emotionally speaking -- and, generally, in a deeply introverted manner -- after multiples, somewhere in the series of repetitions, one becomes obsessed with comprehending the bond, the peer, the self, the death which, with age, one recasts to near-death. I was a virtual master of this realm by the time I, aged eight, arrived at the animistic wet-rice-culture hamlet, Midori Gaoka, in rural kita-Kyushu, summer of 1953. Animistic identity transparency was something I was primed to rapidly catch. And I scooped it up quickly, it being a “satin-flow” thickening the air (oblique references to which inevitably elicit responses revealing whether or not the person has ever been authentically psychologically inducted). Somehow, I realized kata beat against this transparency. I did not understand at that time that high culture, and especially court culture and institutionalized religion, had always been set against peasant animism. But I did not need to understand this “had always been” to react emotionally -- physically, in the gut, even -- to flower arranging kata. And being a military brat, I was caught in a web of rules that way, too. “Capt. Pensinger's residence, Larry speaking.” I instinctively knew that the kata of Ikebana branch arrangement were somehow related to the kata of telephone etiquette, table behaviors, and all the other moment-to-moment correct “ways” I had had to practice -- and that these rules were an assault on the “bond”, the peer-bond. For me there was a direct immediate connection, because it was “the rules” of military life that severed the bond and were responsible for the near-death experiences. By age eight, all of this had my attention -- big time. It was only later -- after I had mastered niizashi, root pruning of trees -- that I learned branching kata had something to do with the field of logic, and much later, yet, that “rooted trees” had something to do with m-valued logics. I did not enter the Cornell mathematics library in search of more rules of kata, or even kata of rules, to subject myself, or anyone else, to. The nail that sticks up either has its head lopped off or gets pounded down. Logical determinism, the rules of accommodation governing the set of inferential relations, i.e., the subject matter of Husserl's academic career, is one form of social capital, and social capital -- in so far as it is capital -- is coercion, raw or cooked, and thus has no redeeming value, even if its utilities include fitness (all forms of fitness, being epiphenomenal of consensuated ₁T₂-logic-only linear-time processing, ultimately, are fitness for the kill -- generally for the unnecessary kill). I had come to understand that the identity transparency I had experienced in the peer-bond, and in the “satin-flow essence” over rice fields of Midori Gaoka, shared at least one property of the pair-bond in superconductant plasmas of QED (quantum electrodynamics): violation of the logic law of non-contradiction. (Your knowledge of quantum biophysics is not adequate to support such a smirk! And we are not even talkin' supersolidity here -- except, of course, in so far as identity transparency is responsible for the “super” state.) If I had reached this conclusion, it appeared likely that others long since also had, and probably had written books about it. Of course, what I found in the library was not exactly what I expected. And there was little in the literature on m-valued logics that was of real interest to me, the interpretations entertained being so clearly an expression of fear, fear of identity transparency, that fear so clearly at the root of so much past mass warfare -- and the supermass warfare yet to come.

Sorry, I am absolutely uninterested. I produce what I can, as I can, and have obtained utter indifference as to the route of entry. It's a matter of inconsequence. What is important is that some act of reception be performed. My “acts” are attempts to “give carte blanche to the brain”. Moreover, pleasantness about such matters, in face of what is transpiring on this planet, is the inappropriate affect marking mental incompetence -- to put it pleasantly.

No. No. You need to make a closer reading. Belief in the role of rules was where von Hayek began; he ended by invoking “the time-shapes of total capital stock”. This end-of-career invocation indicates an infinitude of infinities -- _À-nullT_À-one -- of rule regimes over total capital stock, social capital being included in totals, which is to deny any role to rules whatsoever. What then of the nuclear fission of atomic families? Amoral familism! Amoral watershedism! Amoral clubism! Amoral gangism! Amoral SmartMobism! Amoral corporatism! Amoral clanism! Amoral classism! Amoral caste-ism! Amoral nationism! Amoral blocism! Amoral regionism! Amoral supranationism! Amoral personified institutionalized religionism! Go on, just go on. Go on and choose your scale-level of psychological identification. The maximum principle, i.e., the amoral, is the maximum principle, whatever the scale-level of application involved. Just go on. Dig the grave.

Spinning out of Existentialist orientations -- out of Sartre, out of “existence precedes essence” -- into F. S. C. Northrop's “indeterminate aesthetic continuum” as essayed in his The Meeting of East and West, I attempted to intensively study Kant vis Husserl, Lotze vis Husserl, Schutz vis Husserl: AU-SIS, 1963-64. This obsessive fixation grew out of my 60-page first-semester competitive frosh essay for the SIS chieftain, Dean Griffith, entitled “The Predicament of Existentialism” which converged on Gödel incompleteness and Heisenberg uncertainty. Damned near got thrown out of my shared house by my roommates, who just weren't interested; damned near got thrown out of the School of International Service; was thrown out of the fraternity I had pledged: for my absorption in this task (plus expression of politically incorrect opinions related thereto). Got me bad grades, Bs mostly (as none of my course work was related), but set my intellectual course for a decade (huge distinction here as regards meanings of “course”). One of the most internally creative short blocks of linear-time in my life, marked by wee-hours encounters with a LongedGiland Sabra of the library equally absorbed with Cabbalistic esoterica (which I tried to absorb second hand). These studies everafter and foreversolong have oriented my take on the problem of indicators, whatever the given indicators might be indicating, subjectively or objectively (under ₁T₂ logic only, as I now understand). Indicators of upcoming offensive enemy activity, economic indicators, alternative economic indicators, sustainable development indicators (when “sustainable development” is an oxymoron and development is over, is all, jus' NObody yet don' know it, not yet, or don' ADmit to it theysel'es). Not to mention “culturally sensitive development” by dissemination of uniformizing technologies! ISO twenty-hundred thousand. Volunteers to…WHATEVER! More Band-Aids shoring up the institutions responsible for the mortal wounds receiving the Band-Aids. And, as you know, I write like this on purpose, with Brentano intentionality. It's a spoiling operation. What I learned in The Forces. If m-logically-valued monetary units are to be implemented, there must be indicators of somethings if Brentano intentionalites are to be tagged to weights on the monetary bases. The biggest problem with indicators is that they all, so far, have been developed within an atmosphereometrics, biosphereometrics, geosphereometrics, politicoeconometrics, anthropometrics, sociometrics, psychometrics developed by specialists absorbed with the task of finding ways to justify rise of the state, the megacorporation, and the megacampus for higher enculturation. Even alternative indicators like quality of life, air quality indices, those with “quality” in their names, are still, basically, counters and nothing but counters. Is air quality really a mere matter of ordinal counts made upon quantitative molecular chemistry of gases? In their conception, institutional size is in positive correlation with measures of social capital, capital, mind you, and social capital is indistinguishable from ultrasociality: ultrasociality maxing out on “American Graffiti”, Middle City, circa 1950-62, number of homemade Toll House cookies in the jar a major composite indicator of efficiency, promptness, responsiveness, and strength of institutional performance. All their indicators are measures of measurables -- which quantum physicists of the probability amplitude call “operators” -- quantifiable whatnots of whatever nature, while what requires to be tagged to m-logically-valued monetary units, if externalities are actually to be internalized to market processing, are qualities, not quantities. This cannot be done while working only with number as quantity; number as quality is required. Now, a Gödel number is not actually a quality-number, though it tries to be such. Why would I voluntarily learn another speakable-word-type language when I have for so long beat my head against the wall of psychological induction coercively imposed by linguistic dominance with its associated enormous liabilities discounting streams of consciousness Husserl could not pack into units over propositions and sub-propositions of the speakable, by whatever speakable-word-type language spoken? Why, I wouldn't, would I? Even numbered Gödel numbers (nGn) are not really quality-numbers, unless they are numbers numbered on Musculpt manifold (Mm). Numbering nGn on Mm, however, we have not only quality-number, but synaesthetic quality-number (the manifold of music-sculpture, Mm, being synaesthetic). There is no point in pointing to such a number, nGn, for such a number exists at no point, it being spread over mⁿ qualitative dimensions of cross-modal correlations superposed. You can see it, sort of; you can hear it, sort of; you can feel it, sort of. Now you see it; now you don't. Now you hear it; now you don't. Now you taste it; now you don't. Seehereheartheretouchtastetingletaunt. Peehew! Like the Japanese aesthetic quality gei, however, it is unspeakable. No one can tell you what it is. It is not a shape-of-style. It is not in-the-form; not form in process; not the form of this or that process, nor of general process. It is not an object. It is not objectless, while giving voice to an as-if object. It is not contentless, for being art, it is imbued with Brentano intentionality, which makes even the contentless into a content. Yet, it is utterly unspeakable. But it is not ineffable, mystical, mystifying, for recognition of it is transmissible from generation to generation -- just not by employment of speakable-word-type language. You know it is there only by feeling-into (which is not merely getting a feel for it). And you learn this feeling-into only by an intensive process of unlearning. Gödel didn't number the factors of a Gödel number relative to Husserl's “moments of matter” for the same reasons Husserl designated them as designating “units of consciousness”; Gödel numbered them for the sake of proof, proof he proved with such numbering was unprovable within any system of numbers employable for any given employment. Gödel's proof had gei, but Gödel's understanding of Gödel's proof did not. Don't ask why. Don't ask how. It is utterly unspeakable! The speakable gives voice to a finite collection of units of conscious arranged serially into a proposition defined as any statement that can be determined to be true or false. The Gödel number is a composite ordinal number representing the serial formation of factors given voice in proposition. What else were Kandinsky-Schoenberg doing in Vienna during the decade before Gödel in Vienna came up with the idea of a Gödel number? If Musculpt gave rise to the Gödel number, why should it be so strange that the nGn should number Mm? Human brain, as a neuronal machine, is not properly equipped for multi-tasking, for multi-identity, for voluntary dissociation, because no amount of hypercubing of such serial formations in parallel is equivalent to any order-of-logical-value phase transition: this is what Gödel's proof proved unprovable within a closed logical system. Secret of the Grundgestalt! That's why the brain not contained within the brain processes by quantum superposed _µT_m phase-digit wave-effects, not by the opening and closing of gates that are either open or closed. Abstraction is to get out of empathy with all of its crashings-in-upon and goings-over-to. Symbolic logic is to pull pattern into relief from empathy. The pattern level alone: that's what we need to get out of the dreadful chaos empathy is. Damned Lorelei! Pattern as perceived by binary mind. Isn't that a beautiful one! My god, so busy, not at all clean, crisp. And look at that! It reenters itself. How unspeakable! Horrible. So ugly! Pattern in symbolic logic compacted to Gödel numbers revealed that proof proves unprovable and that truth has no value. Truth in logic. Which has nothing to do with truth in ethics, truth in religion, truth in jurisprudence. Because “Draw a distinction!” is an imperative prerequisite to truth-value in logic, and presence of the notion of identity is required if a distinction is to be drawable. Logically speaking, truth-value is at the bottom of the pole of totems, the bottom being where speakability resides. Musculpt is the machine language for processing unspeakable qualified (not quantified) indicators tagged to m-logically-valued monetary units.

No. What Husserl called a “moment of quality” is not what I regard a quality-number: nGn on Mm. What James Joyce called an “epiphany”, an actually lived quality moment, however, may actually be numbered by quality-number as nGn on Mm (as an aside, I might add that numerical factors of nGn are transcendental in the same way that factors of Gn are prime, and that Mm is ideals in manifold, not merely a heuristically idealized manifold). What could be understood, but isn't, is that Husserl played what Wittgenstein came to regard a “language game” -- word game of the cognoscente -- symptomatic of “philosophical disease”. Husserl did not live lived moments of experience in the life-world, let alone in the cosmos; he thought about what it must be like to live lived moments of experience -- and in the process created a philosophical method of psychological induction to simulacra. This numbing normotic condition -- which Husserl suffered so exorbitantly he inflicted it on the Zeitgeist of his era, that era inflicting it on subsequent eras, the condition thus becoming normative -- etiologically speaking, had its pathogenesis in the degree to which Husserl was identified with his “givens”: inviolability of inference, for instance. He thought inference is essential to thought to the same degree he thought time is a “given time”. Antecedent : consequent :: before : after. The fact that Husserl termed nominal subunits of propositions with a standard idiomatic expression of temporal reference -- “moments” -- illustrates the degree to which inferential system and time evolution were inseparable in his thought, which, for Husserl, was the compass of experience, however small a part of life mere thought is. He did this because, at the outset, as a departmental dictate of his course of study, he set out to develop a general theory of inferential systems so as to demonstrate science, scientific method, and scientists theoretically sound (even if they were manifestly unsound non-theoretically: “defensive” back-reaction to the Lisztian, for instance: damned Magyar histrionics!). Nowadays the unsound slaps the face on a moments-of-matters to moments-of-matters basis: looming ecological, climatic, energy failures. Identification with such givens transforms nomological “may” (permissive) into etiological “must” (impermissive): there is no distinguishing logical determinism from what comes out of the barrel of a gun. Consensus coerced! No unchained melody under the diatonic-diachronic system of signatures. Stamp! Stamp! Phenomenological epoché, supposedly a cultivated attitude of universal doubt, in practice became the imperative: doubt all tacit assumptions one can discover, except one's own. Two ways to become aware, in ontic all-immediacy, of this normotic condition: engage in sustained practice over a period of years of [1] Edmund Jacobson's methods in “autosensory observation” to include progressive and differential relaxation; and/or [2] G. I. Gurdjieff's techniques of “self-observation” along with some associated physical practice: Gurdjieff movements, walking meditation in Philokalia or Vipassana, contemplation by studied manual labor of craft-dexterity. Both of these, carried in immediacy, quench linguistic dominance, thus transforming lived-simulacra into lived experience. Husserlian reductive phenomenology is speakable-language-type description derivative of a thinking in words inaccurately deemed introspection, while actual inspection inward is sensory observation registered bare, bare of thought and description. To the degree this is not the case, to the same degree is there no actual inspection inward: only an introjection verifying consistency of prior projections by unconscious processes of projective-identification. A stage, level, or form of Husserlian reduction, Husserl designated “eidetic reduction”. As employed in this term, the word “eidetic” is a misnomer: the “eidetic” in eidetic reduction has nothing to do with authentic eidetic imagery, which is absolutely and utterly quenched by linguistic dominance and exercise of intentionality, be the involved intention intention by direct will effort (tapas) or be it indirect by the cognitive meta-preprogram (repeat over and over in the hypnogogic state that onset of hypnopompic emergence will transpire at 6 a.m.). There is no mere coincidence involved in the fact that repetition of speakable-word-type words (not, say, white noise bursts) has been the primary means of heterohypnotic induction employed by hypnotherapists or used to achieve autohypnosis (both of which can be electro-physiologically distinguished from the "autogenic state", induction of which also employs repetitions of speakable-word-type words). “Demystification of mantra”, to use John C. Lilly's phrase, is not to be accomplished by eidetic reduction, which is an imaginative unfolding (real linear-time and determined inference as “givens”: therefore, calculable iff recursive: therefore unfolded, not enfolded) of class-inclusion abstracts from collections of concrete cases, an imagination cognitively preprogrammed on the basis of Kantian-type categories miasmatically “given” and tacitly held sacrosanct. The Husserlian “moment of quality” comes when one thinks oneself to one or another implicit ah-ha! as one's imaginary imaginations confirm one or another sacrosanctly held diathetic “given”. This is not what I am talking about. The full spectrum of psychophysiologic functions needs to be engaged on balance if actually lived epiphanies are to be “marked” in exteriorized Musculpt.

Nein. Mein Gott! Yes. Of course Husserl sent the Weimar Zeitgeist into regressive overdrive. His influence on Anita Berber was devastating, simply DEVA-stating. Speech acts are like that, you know: a foundering of founder upon founding. Poor, poor Anita. In public, and all! Such dialogue. Mein Gott! Meanings, according to Husserl, are atemporal “objects” one can GRASP (i.e., identify through identification with) by a linear-time-bound Bolero-type recursive process of UNFOLDING (inferential march of the syllogism, à la Bolero, during INtentional INTROspective acts of reflection-absent-reflexivity and subsequent description in written form of speakable-word-type language, oh-oh-oh-aaaaah!). Pain, Husserl tells us, is objectless; while pleasure has its object. How much actual experience could Husserl have had? And if you think this ascription of sexual content to Husserl's moment-of-quality is a mere diatropism unfounded under the “essential law of foundation”, I counsel holding your tongue, you cunning linguistic philosopher. Twayblade liparis, this is not! No dichasium of songstress and songster specialized in rondeaux redoublés of the hymeneal would rue it -- even if transcribed into runic figurations or DEVA-NAGA-ri. Husserl's mereology -- his DEFINITION of part-to-whole relations, as explicated in the “essential law of foundation”, whereby speech acts, as reductive phenomenological description, express the propositional moment-of-quality as the meaning meaning means in the confluence of founded upon founding, through free imaginative association, conforming to the laws of Aristotle's virile ₁T₂ syllogistic (this “free” variation not being equivalent to C. G. Jung's “directed imagination”, while this “free” is equivalent to the “free” of Silvio Gesell's “free money”) -- PRESCRIBES as “given” an existential dependency explicitly in denial of the identity transparency at issue in sexual congress and the speech act expressing Cantor's most important moment-of-quality: definition of part-to-whole relations in a denumerable transfinite set demonstrated by the infamous Satanic diagonal proof. No example of Turner's syndrome have we here! Husserl's essential law denied possibility of Cantor's most momentous moment-of-quality! Not at all surprising, given presence of Kronecker in transference. According to Husserl's definition -- where p signifies “part”, W signifies “whole”, and ~ indicates “conjugated to” -- p₁(~p₂) + p₂(~p₃) + p₃(~p₄)…p_n(~p_m) = W. By the (defined in) principle of existential dependency, all parts are pair-bonded (Duchamp's “Bride” can have no BACHELORS! i.e., the meanings meaning means) founded upon founding, all such foundeds and foundings being (defined in) absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct between each other and all others between one another. The whole is equal to the sum of such pair-bonded parts, is not greater than the sum of such parts, and absolutely is not (à la explicitly anti-Cantor) equal to any single such part or any single pair-bond of such parts. Animistic identity transparency (of the transfinite set) disallowed, disallowed, disallowed! But, in order to accomplish this under Zeitgeist of the era, Wundt-Koffka-Köhler (gestalt approach to perceptual psychology) had to be subverted both as experiment in the lab and as autosensory observation in empirical introspective positivism. In this historiography, i.e., that explicated in MOON and again offered here in regards to the Weimar Zeitgeist: no cause-effect; no antecedent and consequent; no before and after: synchronicity as acausal connection by thematic orchestration of collective unconscious as transfinite sets instantiated by autogenic brain discharge as spontaneous localization (from atemporal “object” [system] to observer [state] moment-of-quality) at quantum measurement (of moments of matter numbered with nGn on Mm). Autogenic discharge as automatization; actual act of phenomenological reduction to the atemporal “object” as deautomatization. Husserl never explained how one can grasp the atemporal by means of a linear-time-bound process, especially one linguistically dominated and dominating: so delicious! Oh-oh-oh-aaaaah! As soon as you challenge the notion “precedes” (logically, ontologically, temporally) you have also challenged logical determinism, some form of which is required for an inferential system. Do this in an actual lived experience! What then? Not no-mind Satori. No-mind is not absence of mind, it is presence of the multivalue. Though there be the possibility of an instantiated phase transition, this is not nearly so illuminating as slowed-down-smooth-soft: out of which operator-time as logical and topological operator distinctly demerges (i.e., is instantiated atemporally, which is to say independent of real-number linear-time). I have read in blogosphere postings on “Roof-Brain Chatter” that deautomatization cannot transpire because of the existence of neuropeptides. This contention involves an unfounded “essential law of foundation”: to wit, object-system neuropeptides act on observer state, but observer state does not act on object-system neuropeptides. It is virtually certain that, back then, Anita Berber would never have believed that, just as, right now, it is virtually certain Jenna Jameson, Anita's current incarnation, would never agree to it. This piece I write is no piece of appropriation art: no misappropriation of Husserl's term “moment of quality” is herein involved. The term is being used in exactly Husserl's sense. The problem is that the Weimar regression, in part induced by Husserliana, persists unto this day and has been globalized and is being facilitated by networked key-wording and cellular meshworked -- but yet to be taxed in ₁T₂-logically-valued monetary units -- key-imaged porn. Authentic animistic identity transparency (Schrödinger wave-function under m-valued logics, not probability amplitudes as suggested in Weimar in 1926) is precluded by a Bolero-type march. All the dynamics of Love in the Western World, being linear-time-bound are necessarily tragic because the atemporal “object”, contrary to Husserl's claim, which he never explains, let alone substantiates, can never be grasped by a process in time evolution: there are just too, too many infinite regresses, too many anavasthas, involved. The “object” each lover seeks in the other is outside time, is Platonic, is ideal -- and it is Rilke's “object made out of fear”. To directly, in all-immediacy, actually experience the experience of an “other” as atemporal “object”, according to Husserl the quintessence of meaning, is, in the West, very near the very definition of insanity: hence the fear. Bolero-type orgasm is an escape valve and short-circuit that keeps the binary mind linear-time bound, and thus unable to authentically grasp the atemporal “object” by founder upon founding. As long as the foundation of one's most intimate moment-of-quality founders upon linear-time-bound foundling, there can be no authentic transcendental access to animistic identity transparency, only simulacra. Simulacra of the man-woman level of the transference, with its peculiar projective-identifications, nested inside the subject-(physical)object level of the transference, with its peculiar projective-identifications. One way to break the transference and its imposition of linear-time-boundedness, is to simultaneously engage multiple transference figures, in public, sans persona. This transpired in Weimar, not by way of conscious integration via the m-valued logics of moments-of-quality, but by way of unconscious regression due to suppression of such logics (e.g., by way of Husserl's “essential law of foundation” and Born's (not Porn's) probability-amplitude interpretation of Schrödinger's wave-function): polymorphous perverse Weimar Berlin.

Canada-US-GB Weimar redux!

The Canadian Supreme Court recently ruled on a case in such a fashion as to EXPLICITLY STATE in the ruling that public group sex is now legal in Canada under certain circumstances (mostly fulfilled by strip-sex clubs). I just read a long article about this in the online version of the Ottawa paper. As the age of consent in Canada is 14, that means 14-year-olds can participate so long as the club does not sell alcohol. This is directly reminiscent of Weimar Berlin where public group sex became all the rage for approximately a decade before the Nazification process set in -- strongly facilitated by middleclass back-reaction against the polymorphous perverse atmosphere then prevalent in Berlin.

Near Tampa, Florida there is now a large Christian fundamentalist anti-sex nudist community, funded by big money, which is getting a lot of Florida newspaper attention, is in legal battles, and being attacked by other Christian fundamentalist groups. I've recently read some articles on this. The rhetoric is very biblical on both sides, biblical support for and opposition to public nudity. The supporters also draw on sun-worshipper health angles. This is distinctly reminiscent of Weimar youth movement “Bronze Age” culture of nudity which was also staunchly anti-sex.

Anita Berber, reincarnated as Jenna Jameson, has become involved in the brouhaha over touching in the strip bars of Scotsdale, Arizona. Sex industry workers and patrons unite! Sign the petition. Repeal the city council's ordinance separating by four feet two subclasses of Scotsdaleans. Jenna has bought the club and, in conformance with Husserl's dictates, has announced her intentionality: she will franchise nationally. Though Anita was peculiar, she was never this pecuniary: The Americanization of Anita!

It could be argued that public nudity and sex are prerequisite to conscious integration of authentic animistic identity transparency, such that the impetus to war could be overcome: hence, the sexual content of MOON in order to make this argument with emotional impact -- to include appropriate obescience to Anita Berber. However, in the present context, and in the sorts of circumstances described above, there clearly will be little “conscious integration” -- as was the case during the Weimar period: “regression” is the word, due to unconscious vectoring relative to suppressed m-logically-valued identity transparency. Public group sex in a strip club is far and away different from the public group sex practiced, for instance, in association with rice ritual at planting time. It would be interesting to learn something about how commercialization with ₁T₂-logic-type monetary units affects ideal properties of atemporal “objects”, especially their psychological dimensions. Clearly, fetishization carries the “free” variation of imaginative introspection in the moment-of-quality away from the binary interlock imposed by obsessive fixation on the transference figure, but surely the involved “free” variation is at a quality loss, as compared, for instance, to the visualizations of the ideal atemporal “object” cultivated by practitioners of Tantric yoga, Tantric practitioners such as E. Schrödinger and his two teenaged-sister paramours during the period in which Schrödinger wrote the canonical equation for quantum mechanics.

One also reads these days about the recent announcement that the British government will soon become the first to implement country-wide monitoring by GPS of every, that is EVERY, motor vehicle trip made in the country, records of these trips being stored. So, one has a good impression that the totalitarianization process is well in hand. The prevailing system appears incapable of not using a conceivable technology.

And the official American answer to the ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada? The Abstinent Army in Ascension. My, what big hormones you have! All the better to holocaust you, my dear. Armies of God in clashing coition: one committed to celibacy; the other promulgating purdah.

Husserlian “profiles” and “horizons” of “objects” apply to all atemporal objects, so if you do not believe that Husserliana is intimately involved in the above-described social dynamics, then, clearly, you do not understand She-Who-Must-Be-Believed -- let alone tank Tantra.

As far as I know, Husserl did not write such an equation as I gave it for the “relations of foundation”. I simply transcribed my understanding of what he had to say on the subject into notation as Husserl's definition of a proper whole, p₁(~p₂) + p₂(~p₃) + p₃(~p₄)…p_n(~p_m) = W. This equality, as the definition (= equals º, whereas all º can only actually become = once empirically verified, and only to the degree of verification, by autosensory introspection and/or observational extrospection) it serves-as in Husserl's thought, is an overt attack on the essential quality at issue in sexual intercourse: animistic identity transparency. And this definition has been so successful since Aristotle's times in programming and metaprogramming the human biocomputer that most people's reaction to the “assertion” that sex (and even love) has something to do with identity is: “Huh?” Husserl ruled that -- speaking in language of the Kantian-categorical about “units of consciousness”, “moments of matters” nominal and propositional, and the “moment of quality” -- simple-identity (i.e., I am me and only me) is the essence of the “essential law”: {I am (me)} thus becomes tantamount to {I am (here) [now]}. Me (here) [now] = selfsame (conditional) [occasional] = identity (space) [time] = given categories of our (coercive “our”) understanding (understood to be inherently-hardwired, not glutamate-etched, upon the selfsame brain contained as the discrete brain which can have no significant quantum properties in violation of the classical limit). This is “given”, not subject to axiomatic challenge, experiential challenge, experimental challenge because the laws of inference deem so, and protect the “given” as given from all possible types of challenge. We have here the self-evident (to linear-time-bound users of ₁T₂-logic-only in processing of percepts and propriocepts) axiom of unique identifiability -- imposed by Aristotelian indexicality-inventoric, classificationistic taxonomic-lexicographical logical bivalence -- which, by fiat, rules out animistic identity transparency, and hence all levels of logic deeper than truth-value. If experience, such as coitus, belies tabular truth-table values, then, Sex without sex! Thinking in tables, whether explicitly entabled or only in tacit cognitive dimensions. {I am (me)}@ subject : object :: object : subject @ the subject is its own (direct) object :: the object is its own (direct) subject @ animism. The inherent reflexivity in this cosmic proportion is, depending upon the person, unregistered or disallowed by the fallacy of reification involved in the fallacy of infinite regress in the selfhood, anavastha, both fallacies becoming fallacies only by definition, not by: all º can only actually become = once empirically verified, and only to the degree of verification, by autosensory introspection and/or observational extrospection. Husserl, in attacking a central position taken by the Wundtian Introspectionists who helped birth the gestalt -- i.e., there exists contentless awareness as pure consciousness, hence a violation of (postulation of the unverified exclusivity of) Brentano “intentionality” -- intentionally decided to have his cake and eat it too: “units of consciousness”, which must be units, which units must be selfsame by the axiom of unique identifiability, must, by Brentano intentionality, represent something (and any such something, by the above-given musts, must be uniquely identifiable as a discrete whatnot, as a something with similar properties: hence, the case must be any and every p_n conjugated to one and only one p_m in any and every proper whole, such conjugation not violating the absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct type distinction between the subject-something conjugated to the object-something, even in the case of generalities like “any” and “every” and “only”). By definition, then, there can be no reflexivity in subject-object relations, in the relations of foundation, as such reflexivity would undermine absoluteness of the subject and object thus placed in bivalent relation. I is I and only I and me is me and only me (otherwise, by Occam's razor, another unverified rule under ₁T₂ logic, ontological pleonasm), and never the twain shall meet (under ₁T₂ logic treated as an object trouvé). By God, no Plotinists allowed in this cosmological neighborhood! Subject cannot be its own object; object cannot be its own subject: unbridgeable (synaptic-ephaptic) gap between subject and object. Quod erat demonstrandum: Sex without sex (i.e., “moral” sex)! Lemma: War without war (i.e., “moral” war)! So long as bivalency and logical determination prevail, there will be war because Nature must be selfsame, an object worthy of rape in all its various forms and degrees (animistic identity transparency suppressed and regressed to asabiya-for-conquest -- i.e., thus transferred from inner-jihad to outer-jihad by collective unconscious processes of projective-identification).

I am not opposed to P2P; I am opposed to P. “Cooperative individualism”: one more postmodernist oxymoron produced by processes of projective identification induced by the regression due to suppression of m-logically-valued animistic identity transparency: not Caliban reborn a witch; Wandervogelmystik and Schicksal of the Weimar youth groups reborn by technofix under overwrought of Dodecamechanos masturbating Cyberia's cosmic keyboard searching for keywords with which to penetrate Nacht und Nebel of the prevailing Umsturzsituation. Collectivity through equipotential selection of strengthened personal autonomy: person as object, object as node; person, object, and node as universal common property on sale for Weimar-era free money. Permalinks bridged in Bittorrents between viral communicators hubbed for podcasting the LAMP infrastructure: meshwork of cooperating devices. Device as peer; peer as device. Quite frankly, whatever your broadcast machine, however common your bits, the difference between flat-assed P2P and pigopolistic Sup/Sub (superior/subordinate) is minimal to inconsequential. Anyone who has ever been to combat with a highly expert unit knows how instantaneous is the phase transition between Sup/Sub and P2P, whether the 3C (commo, command, control) event horizon is F2F (face-2-face) or indefinitely extended by microwave pulse-code burst and the VR (virtual reality) battlefield management P2P-RISC (reduced instruction set computing) environment. Back and forth and back and forth: Sup/Sub and P2P and Sup/Sub and P2P… This is clearly illustrated by the short history of the SmartMob. The SmartMob did not emerge by wisdom of the crowd as a benign instrument of autopoiesis; it emerged as a smart lynch mob: terrorist and counter-terrorist. T-2-CT. Which came first, the terrorist or the counter-terrorist? Chicken and egg. Positive feedback to negative feedback and negative feedback to positive feedback… Is self-organization a mere matter of the distribution of feedbacks, linear or nonlinear, reflexive or not? No probability amplitude of that! Hierarchy and heterarchy and hierarchy and heterarchy: in biological systems, the two are superposed and hologramically non-contradictory, a condition no binary-logic processor, however paralleled and hypercubed, would permit. Homeostasis and heterostasis and homeostasis and heterostasis… Panarchy and holarchy are euphemisms within a ₁T₂-logic processor environment: any accurate characterization would be offensive, for it would reveal the processes of projective identification involved in the euthanasic self-deception. It is not that the more E (expert) the Ps (peers) in the unit, the less Sup/Sub required, but rather the less Sup/Sub possible: that is why the army -- any and every army -- has always had such a big problem accepting existence of special service corps. And the reason behind this “less possible” is no less acceptable to career civilians than to career military. As index of collective self-organizational competency improves, the correlation length goes to infinity at the critical state and there is less and less individualism extant to cooperate: identities don't change; the very nature of identity as a quantum-physical, metaphysical, and metalogical category changes. Cognitively speaking, by brain damage, people can't handle this change: brain damage not so much to the ₁T₂-logic neuronal machine, but to the _µT_m-logic non-local quantum brain. Glutamaturic etching by prescriptive enculturation, yes. But nowadays also by fMRI: relatively non-invasive to the neuronal machine, but massively invasive to the non-local brain's quantum phase-digits (however uninterested in this fact Gilbert Ling might be). Just as the internet was pioneered for the military-industrial-enculturation complex and has trickled down to grid-computed consumption, viral communicators, affinity groups, hypersociality and other dating games compensating information age anomie, so the SmartMob began with Delta Force and Al Qaeda and has bled down to netcasting against network news anchormen: DMMS, DogMouth MobileSwarming. Two guys sharing a townhouse down my Alley of Eden spend six hours a day pacing back and forth up and down the alley yelling automatisms into their cell phones. I just discovered they are microwave linked to each other! These two hyperpeople are so hypersocial they are incapable of shouting oaths across the table in the breakfast nook. Sup/Sub and P2P and T-2-CT and Sup/Sub and P2P and T-2-CT and Sup/Sub and P2P and T-2-CT and Sup/Sub and P2P and T-2-CT… This is exactly how the Viet Cong beat hell out of the U.S. Army. Their cellular (3P criticism/self-criticism) m-dimensional commo-liaison network out-performed any Wi-Fi cellular meshwork yet imagined! Moreover, the P2P-and-DeadDrop liaison involved was so labor intensive, this factor alone catalyzed a level of self-organizational competency no Wi-Fi meshwork could ever hope to match (unless you want to talk about the DropDead self-organization of p-electron parcels of intraneuronal DNA induced by the uploading microwave burst produced by the cell phone). But self-organization in and of itself is no benison. Any veteran of the Hatchet Forces, a dagger team, a half-team, a Mike Force, a Roadrunner unit can tell you that: self-organization for the kill. Self-organization for what? is the question. Self-organization of what? is another question. The problem with P (in P2P -- and even in 3P in practice, if not theory) is that the fundamental notion of identity involved is the same fundamental notion of identity involved in Sup and Sub and T and CT. So long as that is the case, no matter how smart the SmartMob starts out -- P2P, Sup/Sub, T-2-CT or 3P-2-3P -- it eventually will find its way to smart lynch mob status. 3P-2-3P was the double-stacked Lenin-Muenzenberg cellular-networked maximum-minimum MoSoSo mobile social software (armed propaganda teams) program of which the single-stacked group-forming P2P Wi-Fi presencing and proximity-alerting mesh network of phased-array transmitters and dolphin-podded receivers is the RSS (really simple syndication) party of the new type. And if television has not yet left the breast, how confident can we be that the worldwide web will leave the breast in time to solve the post-peak-oil crisis? Peercasting technical code conflict as locus of social engineering? More likely, mesh networks, too, will adhere to the maximum-minimum program pioneered by Willi Muenzenberg: promise the maximum, deliver the minimum. By any rubric, embedding participation by fine-grained tagging of social protocols according to rules of social physics is soft totalitarian prescriptive enculturation software insofar as recursive algorithms are employed in the virtual gaming marketplace. In tagging m-logical values to LETS monetary units by real-time gaming of multiple-scenarios VirFut Q-Pro for processing by Musculpt, however, soft totalitarianism (and associated induced brain damage) will not be the case. Inform information and communication technology use by strong imagination, not by extreme virtuality through a metaphysics of simulation and simulacra, a semiotics of the facsimile, a poetics of puppetry, a mimesis of mirroring likenesses, an appropriation art of the copy, the paste, the post, the prosthesis, the plastic transplant. Me i/I; you I/i? Real conscious immersion in a pod, not pretension thereto by purchase of a MacEgoPod with which to order your MacBurger prolfood from lumpencapitalists. Musculpt in biofeedback-equipped Lilly tanks as mind gyms for inner-work practice in preparation for EscherForm dance in smart hologramic dancewear by a human pod (autopoy as basic social unit) learning synaesthetic dolphin-speak sonic-visioning is a necessary concomitant to tagging m-logical values to LETS monetary units by real-time gaming of multiple-scenarios VirFut Q-Pro for processing by Musculpt such that differential selection of higher and higher states of conscious identity transparency can inform the autopoietic operators yielding quantum autopoionomies (spontaneous orders in their various dimensions). Not the role of rules! Not the rule or roles! System-stop selection always from bottom of the apple barrel. P in P2P, not peer, but Pod in PodState (not i-state or I-state) identity transparency by resonance at sonic-visioning of inner Musculpt prepared for conscious exteriorization (not projective identification) as Kunstwissenshaft methodology technology. Blah to blogosphere DMMS!

Of course a recursive Chomskyan generative semantics is necessarily anti-Cabalistic, anti-Platonic. Against writing Bolzano, Lotze, Husserl. But it's all oh-so-circular! Husserl was already writing against-- proximally Bolzano, covertly… hmmm. Existence assumptions “bracketed”. Humph! The “eidetic” in eidetic reduction. Humph! The “transcendental” in transcendental phenomenology. Humph! Mis-Appropriation Art. Since Husserl's logical investigations productive of his ideas were based upon close study of Ona T. Nerb's Psychology of the Empirical Standpoint, is it surprising he became so inverted, so retrograde? Or that the retrograde inversion became the leitmotiv of the era following publication of his ideas? The intentional cannot, repeat cannot, be transcendental. That is: authentically transcendental, a transcendental not placed inside quotation marks -- the authentically transcendental being the very “object” class (order-type of class, actually) expressly not investigated in transcendental phenomenology, most specifically because the transcendental is pre-linguistic, is not verbal, is not multiply instantiated word-type thought and speech. No-mind is not absence of mind; it is presence of Abel's multivalue! So, what was Husserl doing by calling his linguistic phenomenology “transcendental”? He was prefiguring postmodernist black propaganda in covertly writing against Abel's quintic Possibility Theorem (rightly named), for it was the able demonstrations made by the “Impossibility” Theorem which rigorously established the “existence” of transcendental means and meanings in mathematics. But, actually, this “existence” is ontological and atemporally before existence in the same way that the logical is atemporally before the ontological (the logical must be before anything in the fore of the be can be put onto it). Dr. Malaprop's malefic night sea journey helped give the collective unconscious mal de mer. Calling the very public mining of harbors a covert action subtly suggests there are no more-covert covert actions than those publicly known. Synopsis, Psyops 010, JFK Special Warfare Center.

What do you mean these ideas are too abstract to relate to everyday human problems, even if they could be worked out in detail? Contrary to the usual pragmatics, the potential ability of these ideas to actually solve intractable human dilemmas is a function of their conceptual abstruseness. How long do you think the Reagan cap will remain on the Central American pressure cooker? How long will implementation of the Dayton Accords maintain the “accord” in the Balkans? What will actually resolve conflict in the trans-Caucasus? How will the Palestinian-Israeli situation be prevented from going ballistic? These are the sorts of situations only m-logically-valued monetary units mapped on fluctuating fractal boundaries processed by Musculpt as metaculture and computer-gamed by Virfut Q-Pro could possibly adequately address. Appropriately disparaging the November 1992 discussions amongst involved parties at the U.S. Department of State, Robert Fisk (The Great War for Civilization, Knopf, 2005, pp. 388-9) offers a particularly relevant set of observations on the latter case, which I quote at length:

The Palestinians wanted to talk about land; the Israelis wanted to talk about “devolved functions.”… The problem for the Palestinians was that the Israelis wanted to talk about “double territoriality” and overlapping jurisdictions… The Israelis had come forward with “Arab zones,” “security zones,” “settler zones,” and an area where both Palestinians and Israelis were supposed to “cooperate” together. An Israeli spokeswoman in Washington said that her government realized that Arab-owned land existed in these areas and was willing to recognize this ownership, provided it was backed up by land and property deeds. But she said that most of the land was “disputed.” “Whose law is supposed to prevail in it? Israeli law? Jordanian law from before the 1967 war? British Mandate law? Ottoman law?”

The Palestinians would not accept this. [A Palestinian representative stated that] “It was the Israelis who created the settlements. It was they who set up what they call 'security zones' on our land. Since 1967, only the Israelis have access to deeds and laws on West Bank land. Why should we have to accept all this overlapping of functions?… [An Israeli delegate observed that] “This is not a trial where we discuss who did what to whom. History [emphasis in original statement] created this problem.”

Note the essential terms of reference revealed by this discourse: land, law, zones, devolved functions, double territoriality, overlapping jurisdictions, overlapping of functions. Note the implied modes of thought -- other than psychological identification with vested self-interest -- designating the terms of reference: ₁T₂-logic-only Venn diagrams relative to jurisdictions and administrative functions; doubly-exponentiated quantal superposition misconstrued as Cartesian-Newtonian binary superimposition relative to territory; Cabalistic-Sufi involution in the functions of roles transposed to Rabbinical-Mullahish devolution of authority. Note exhibition by both sides of the more tacit insistence upon purified identity and simple-identity. Note overwhelming edaphic presence of the autochthonous “territorial imperative” characteristic of Robert Ardry's small-brained australopithecine club-wielding savage. Note, in the personification of History, the hypostatization, reification, and substantialism attributed to the Cabalists by the Rabbinate, even though historically it was the Rabbinate that insisted upon historicizing the atemporal tribal unperspectival embraced to this day by the Cabalists (and, as Gebser long ago explicated, transformed to the aperspectival by quantum-relativity physics). And be aware that, in Israeli de facto administration of the post-Six-Day-War status quo, the curfew, the Closed Military Area, and the identity check also reveal the Kantian category-of-understanding limitations of the involved brain states: a particular take on the nature of time, space, and identity. There is no solution possible -- given the involved brain states and their terms of reference -- independent of annihilation or mutual annihilation.

Look, what the 20th century had to offer of a positive nature, with few exceptions, was already out of the cultural birth canal by onset of the First World War. And even before that war, the products issuing seem to have been predominantly matters of mixed messages… Consider the case of Edmund Husserl. Husserl not only ruled out at the outset of his work non-bivalent logics; in so doing, he also disallowed a non-dissimulated quantum mechanics. Husserl began this work in the 1890s, and virtually all his basic ideas had been produced by 1913 when his Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy was first publicized in the journal he edited. Mathematics and science were taken as equivalent to sets of propositions and consistent inferences there from. A proposition is defined as any statement that can be determined to be true or false: non-dissembled m-valued logics ruled out; m-logically-valued interpretation of Schrödinger's wave-function ruled out. But the nature of the mixed message is more complex than that: Husserl embedded Plato inside of Brentano; he did not enfold Brentano inside of Plato, as, for instance, physicist David Bohm would have liked. Lukasiewicz was not only challenging omnipotence of logical bivalence by 1906-7; he was contesting determinism of inferential march in Aristotle's syllogistic -- both of which Husserl assumed to be the defining properties of mathematics and science. How far was Lvov from Göttingen? Lack of acknowledgement and absence of mention are not equivalent to no awareness. Incidence of Polish jokes is indicative of the awareness. Husserl, in embracing an existentialist orientation to philosophy, ate the central proposition of Existentialism: “existence precedes essence”. But being trained as a mathematician in the wake of Cantor, and receiving his instruction where he did under whom he did, Husserl knew very well that the hare of existence could never catch up with the tortoise of essence -- without a little help from his mathematical friends. Getting out of the fallacy of infinite regress required a judicious dose of Platonism, a spoonful of the castor oil of “essence precedes existence”. Propositions, Husserl maintained, are atemporal objects. But a true mathematician-philosopher, unlike Cantor, certainly was not, like Cantor, to swallow the whole bottle of this disgusting medicine. Here was a brilliant stroke on part of Husserl: by deeming Platonic atemporal objects necessarily true or false (in the very definition of a proposition), one could not only put Cantorian Platonism in its place, thus pleasing Kronecker-the-mogul, but simultaneously, by implication, stigmatize the road less taken: Lukasiewicz's challenge to the very notion of logical precedence tacitly assumed by the contradicting central assumptions of Existentialism versus Platonism (both of these more traveled roads left the notion “precedence relations” uncontested). And, at the same time, make linear-time unassailable! Put this falsehood (false because linear-time cannot be defined absent bivalence -- distinguishing absolutely one selfsame instant from another, such that the simply-connected linear timeline is possible, requires bivalence -- and, therefore, designating bivalent propositions as atemporal is ridiculous) on top of the theft and inversion of Abel's “transcendental” and the involved mixed messages insured that only the “mixed state” by inversion to “pure state” would be given credence in matters of moment. The “pure state” (a superposition which violates bivalence and transcends linear-time) called a “mixed state” was relegated to the trash heap -- and this was emphasized all the more by defining “pure logic” as the study of “impure” propositional-nominal (i.e., bivalent) semantics. By embedding Plato within Brentano, Husserl had the atemporal unfolding over linear-time (not linear-time being enfolded into the atemporal) which the tortoise well knew was not the case, such knowing being the source of his smug self-confidence. You may protest that Schrödinger's famous time-independent wave equation was written well after these so-called shenanigans of Husserl, and therefore my demeaning of Husserl's effort cannot possibly have merit. The trouble with this protest is that all the outstanding issues related to interpretation of Schrödinger long predated his wave equation (indeed, even his birth) and were intensely fought over in higher mathematics beginning with Abel's solution of 1826 to the problem of the quintic, named from an Existentialist hare's point of view as the “Impossibility Theorem” and from a Platonist tortoise's perspective as the “Possibility Theorem”.

How these theoretical issues relate to concrete circumstances is revealed, for instance, by the case of The City of Jerusalem. The City of Jerusalem in deep traditions of The Fertile Crescent Religion is not a place in ponderable physical space; it is a “place” in sacred space, a state of consciousness. Place as state; state as place. Identification of state-as-place with place as territorial spot in physical space is by collective unconscious processes of projective identification: “Next year in Jerusalem”, for instance. The “Next Year” stands-in within consciousness for the outstanding unconscious processes of projective identification. In personification of History, hypostatization, reification, and substantialism are attributed to the Cabalists-Gnostics-Sufis by the Rabbinate-Pontiffs-Mullahs/Imams, even though historically it was the Rabbinate-Pontiffs-Mullahs/Imams who insisted upon historicizing the atemporal tribal unperspectival embraced to this day by the Cabalists-Gnostics-Sufis (and, as Gebser long ago explicated, was transformed to the aperspectival by quantum-relativity physics). Husserl's embedding of Plato inside Brentano, rather than enfolding Brentano inside Plato, is the functional equivalent of this historicizing-particularizing -- as opposed to the archaicizing-generalizing -- tendency (though, via the transposition accomplished by projective identification, it is generally regarded the opposite: the whatnot, the case, the thing, the whatsoever called by the name of its opposite: good black propaganda always relies closely upon mimesis of unconscious processes). The psychological complex-ensemble, underlying the archetypal presentations characteristic of The Fertile Crescent Religion, split-off and assault one another, the collective unconscious dynamic being introjected as the affect-charge, feeding upon the (emotional-libidinous) drive inhibition, impelling the projective identifications manifest in ponderable physical space as conflicting existential claims to “territory”: e.g., that consciousness-state concretized-particularized and territorially-designated The City of Jerusalem. In such a case, The City of Man is no longer modeled on The City of God, but The City of God is become a projection of The City of Man. This cosmogenetic inversion and inflationary self-attribution is the internal combustion engine of human conflict, affect-charge being the “fossil fuel” burned. You think the human species can “solve” its impending civilization-wide energy crunch and induced climate-shift dynamic without consciously sorting out this metapsychological muddle? Certainly, there is no possibility the Israeli-Palestinian hiatus can be resolved so long as much of the species continues to wallow in this muddy mire. Only by tapping into Musculpt as medium for metacultural processing could the cosmogenetic inversion undergo requisite reversion, such that, once again, The City of God informs The City of Man. This might, in part, involve, for instance, VirFut Q-Pro being holographically projected above the territorially-designated City of Jerusalem as color/timbre-coded dynamic polymorph music-sculpture imaginary-time processing of externalities tagged to local m-logically-valued monetary units. The unconscious collective dynamic can be consciously integrated, at least in part, by active imagination, Musculpt being an exteriorized social form of the involved personal inner work (whether that work be called inner jihad, witness, sacrifice, ritual observance…).

I am unaware of any market mechanisms attending meetings of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Federal Reserve Board, the Editorial Committee of the IMF Staff Papers, the National Security Council, the Policy Planning Board of the U.S. Department of State, the Board of Directors of the World Bank. Tacitly conflating effectors and effector organs of nation-states and multilaterals with market micro-actors and macro-behaviors is confounding and dissembling. No one who ever participated in these councils and boards believed in free markets: to so sit is to exhibit one's disbelief, whatever one might say. Being no believer in governance, how could I subscribe to the notion that “The best government is the least government”? Demobocracy. Humph! Libertarian anarcho-capitalism, being so close on the political Möbius strip to the mobocracy of anarcho-syndicalism, is way too far to the left: Marx never innovated with regard to the notion of money, and he, no less than Milton Friedman, certainly would not have permitted any fundamental alteration to Newton's orientation as monitor of the mint. Why else did Marx trudge back and forth to the library in London day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year? Had he had a problem with Newton, he wouldn't have left Germany. Indeed, he couldn't even handle Paris. I have never talked about prevention of “deautomatization”, but amelioration of that systemic condition and vectoring of the flight path of exit to “reautomatization”. I prefer these terms (explicated by Heinz Hartmann in his book of 1937, Ich-Psychologie und Anpassungsproblem: Ego Psychology and the Problem of Adaptation) to “emergency”, “catastrophe”, “chaos”, “Armageddon”, “meltdown”, and so on, because the psychoanalytic terms invoke a wealth of related notions which are instructive in regards to the nature of the demerging Heideggerian Umsturzsituation (a far from equilibrium situation of deautomatization leading to a phase transition either of creation or destruction, and I would add: and/or some combination of both) and how this situation could be most effectively engaged. So long as, for instance, globalization means [1] a world salary and stock options for the executive, [2] a world price for manufactured goods and high-tech services conjoined to [3] local prices for natural resources and low value-added raw agricultural products, and [4] local wages, the flight path chosen for exit from the imminent state of deautomatization cannot possibly be one which will lead to a higher state of functional integration than the one we presently don't particularly enjoy. But this is no reason to reject the basic idea behind globalization: comparative advantage. What needs to be rejected is the very idea of what money can and cannot be through which comparative advantage is presently being globally implemented by market dynamics and uniformizing technology. Change single-logically-valued money to m-logically-valued money and -- by incorporation of unprocessed externalities to processes of self-organization -- comparative advantage takes on the holographic-fractal properties of a non-probabilistic quantum relative-state. Under such a local-to-global currency-regime nesting, globalization could not possibly be globalization-as-we-have-known-it. Why? Because comparative advantage would be market-evaluated in terms of F. A. von Hayek's (non-algebraic, transcendental, hypercomplex-Gödel-numbered, m-logically-valued) “time shapes of total capital stock” -- not market-evaluated in single-scenario, real-numbered, singly-logically-valued, passive, passing linear-time. Now, I have never been naive enough to believe this could be implemented under present circumstances, planet Earth. People here, forgodsake, still believe in linear-time-bound Newtonian and deteriorated-Newtonian thermodynamics. That's why I have always talked about amelioration and the critical-state behaviors prerequisite to determining flight paths of egress from transit, occultation, eclipse. And why I have long and often said that no one will be interested in this until…

What is unfortunate, but all too predictable, is that the Bolivian prez-elect Evo Morales is being criticized for his alpaca stripes and for turning to Chavez's turn to Castroism (see: “Morales: 'We're joining in Castro's and Chavez's work'”, Spain Herald, 4 January 2006), rather than for the fact that he has given no indication of being likely to take inspiration from his Andean and Aymara heritage -- the long-lost, integrated multi-level alpine agricultural system that worked so well in pre-Inca days and the currently globally-unique 3-logically-valued property of the Aymaran language -- in arriving at principles of a truly innovative policy-formulation orientation. Three-logically-valued is presently the world's best adumbration of m-logically-valued.

The likely answer is: Schrödinger's Anima (in the case of John Nash, the “hallucinated” little girl who never grew up; and in the case of Einstein, aspirations to marriage with the daughter's daughter as well as the daughter, the involved “pairings” being a kind of Bose-Einstein condensation) was so decisively in transference. It's easy enough to see why Gödel, who married (signifying a certain interlocking psychological state of syzygy) a “café dancer” -- the closest approach he could make to the Animistic icon of the era: Anita Berber, that very Levantine she-who (most definitely) must-be-believed -- would have ignored m-valued Lukasiewicz's logics, but a supposedly non-dilettante practitioner of Tantric sexual yoga, like Schrödinger? Gödel, in skirting the Liar's Paradox, and thereby avoiding a direct encounter with the self-reference personified by the intrapsychic contrasexual Anima, suppressed the Animistic identity transparency rigorously codified by m-valued logics (orders of self-reference inside of orders of self-reference: self/anti-self duality in its most simplistic limiting case), and consequently could successfully engage these principles only in projective identification: the resultant imperative (the “must” in she-who-must) being to ignore Lukasiewicz's logics. John Nash, of course, transferred the dilemma of the Anima-in-projection into ₁T₂-logic-only game theory and received a Nobel prize largely for finding a way to keep the generative empathic processes associated with identity transparency out of economics: split-off autonomous complexes treated as prisoners caught in a dilemma because they reject long-range phase correlations in throwing out m-valued logics with the bathwater of identity transparency (noting cross-sheet synchronicities on the Riemann surface of everyday life as portrayed in newspapers, graphing them, drawing connecting lines between them to establish the in-group/out-group topologies at play, et cetera, is the only way to achieve conscious integration of the involved m-logically-valued functions -- unless one is subjected to chemically-induced convulsions, of course). One does have to retain one's critical faculties when looking at a figure like Schrödinger. Apparently, Schrödinger's wife (in a fashion similar to that of the traditional Vietnamese first wife: “I will marry a second wife for you”, i.e., she chooses the secondary “transference figure” repository of the projected Anima) introduced him to the teenaged sisters who became his two Tantric soror mystica. The fact that Schrödinger ignored m-valued logics -- placed rigorously on the scene by Lukasiewicz and Emil Post by 1921, several years before Schrödinger came up with his time-independent wave equation -- throws some question upon how non-dilettante Schrödinger's practice of Tantric sexual yoga actually was; and, conversely, choice of fifteen- and sixteen-year-old sisters (rather than, say, graduate students) as his yogini cohort likely sheds considerable light upon why he ignored m-valued logics in struggling to produce a viable interpretation of his wave-function, a task he never successfully accomplished because he ignored m-valued logics. The notion of Bose-Einstein condensation came into being by projective identification on part of philosopher-scientists incapable of consciously integrating the Anima. The actual case -- which Bose-Einstein condensation is a psychological regression of (“regression” having both psychoanalytic and mathematical senses relevant here) -- is linear-time independent, as was the case with Schrödinger's original wave equation, the equation before it was molested by Dirac. This equation issued out of assiduous studies of the “double-slit experiment”. My strong suspicion is that Schrödinger's Tantric sisters (were they all-the-more analogically accurate double-slit twins, rather than merely sisters separated by one year -- I can’t remember?) were not actually qualified as yogini capable of inducting anyone into Tantric esoterica. These two girls thus -- being no Lalleshwari, no incarnations of Grandmother Lalla, no conveyors of Lal Ded quantum dots on base state of Tzog-chen, the Mother's “warm-golden dust of Supermind” (dotty Kusama singularities on universal covering over a transfinite collection of multi-sheeted Riemann surfaces) -- had to have given birth to the Schrödinger's Cat Paradox: dead-or-alive contraposed with dead-and-alive is a ₁T₂-logic-only linear-time-bound dilemma that simply could not occur to a non-dilettante practitioner of Tantric sexual yoga full onto the process of withdrawing the Anima from projection and thus genuinely integrating authentic self-reference and identity transparency. Of course, Alan Turing, before being psychologically raped at Bletchley Park, was analogically spreading himself over all these issues. It was not chemically-induced convulsions the British Government wished to subject him to, so as to prevent him from returning to his psychological pre-Nazi-codes status quo ante, but nonetheless… And the poisoned apple was such a beautiful solution! Not only the apple leading to expulsion from the Garden of Eden, but Newton's apple. Turing was the only one of these demigods who actually had the last word -- which makes one suspect Turing knew he knew a great deal more than he would ever have been allowed to enunciate. At paradigm conflict, philosopher-scientists and mathematicians never look at the actual case to see what it has to say; they grasp Occam's razor, which Nature, being m-logically-valued, abhors, in an attempt to make only the absolutely minimum change to the enculturated worldview construct, so as to avoid necessity of altering the habituated normative psychological state and socio-politico-economic institutionalization of the sacrosanct worldview construct. And -- by collective psychological projection carried out over the subject-(physical)object level of the transference -- to build technological embodiments of suppressed and hence regressed states of consciousness. Internet telepresence being one example of technologically embodied, suppressed and regressed, animistic identity transparency. Another being the battle management system for tank warfare. If an enemy vehicle laser-targets any tank in the battle group, all tank commanders instantly know about it, and any member of the battle group can bring that enemy under attack. This is a technological-artifact version of the suppressed and regressed animistic identity transparency experienced at core of what Toussaint in MOON describes as “high combat”, wherein every member of the special operations half-team knows everything any member knows, even when the seeing required is physically impossible: animistic identity transparency suppressed and regressed to the “adrenalin rush” sixth sense in “mad moments” of highly skilled and exquisitely attuned combatants. From such infrapsychology has the whole ecologically ill-adapted Cartesian-Newtonian regime of industrial and post-industrial development been transferred to the physical world as engine of Nature's destruction. Just as Wittgenstein eventually concluded there is no philosophical route out of “philosophical disease” -- one has to leave the cognitive territory in which the disease rages -- so there is no “if only” way out of the only-too-human, that unstoppable, inarguable personified projective identification become quintessentially human. Here, for a brain-damaged species, collective suicide has become the only “out”.

Just as the Argentine economy, a system with minimal self-organizational competency, by spontaneously generating multiple local currencies, demonstrated it well knew what it needed as it collapsed from having followed IMF prescriptions, so Bolivia presently demonstrates. But just as the Argentine local currencies could not have actually worked, absent their having become m-logically-valued, so present policy orientations in Bolivia cannot possibly work, there being too many components missing from Evo Morales' evolving program. Quoting from a recent article printed in The Economist (“The explosive nature of gas”, February 11, 2006, p. 40):

…there is scope for a deal with the multinationals. Mr. Morales has made soothing noises, promising “nationalisation” without expropriation. He has invited the companies to become “partners” of YPFB, the revived state oil firm. If that means surrendering both their gas and the right to set export prices, the firms will want compensation and/or big tax breaks on future investment. The main hope for compromise is that rupture could be worse for both sides. The companies would be forced to write off their investments. The government could seek deals with state oil companies in Venezuela and elsewhere but would face lawsuits in international courts.

This is typical The Economist myopia, the editors of which in HK and elsewhere, during 1997, in aftermath of the East Asian meltdown, exhibited scathing disinterest in the notion of m-logically-valued monetary units. But insight of Morales, too, is limited. He is not tapping into the animistic identity transparency his tribal background and three-logically-valued Aymaran language heritage gives him access to in trying to find a mechanism actually capable of producing “'nationalisation' without expropriation”. Identity incorporation through partnership in a state oil firm is hardly the answer -- just as carbon trading will not prove the vehicle by which the human species effectively manages its interface with induced climate-shift dynamics. Were several echelons of an m-logically-valued monetary system in place, however, identity incorporation in lieu of “'nationalisation' without expropriation” could be gamed by corporate representatives and the people of Bolivia with great subtlety as weights stacked on the involved currency bases are tagged to domestic and export prices, taxes, repatriated profits, wages, and so on. In self-organizing quantum systems, each unit of (electron) exchange carries, by superposed phase-digit array, comprehensive holistic information about the total relative-state of the involved processes: there are not just a few pipeline valves used to regulate behaviors of the system. M-logically-valued monetary units would bring quantum-competency to market mechanisms, alleviating the need to make bivalent choices on matters like nationalization, expropriation, repatriation, et cetera. But, of course, the competent user would have to unabashedly enter non-regressed animistic states of identity transparency, such entry probably being easiest for those from tribal backgrounds where the language used is based on a three-valued logic.

Scientism is no reflection on science; it's a reflection on scientists. The “scientismly” normotic scientist is not only addicted to a dead paradigm, he is paradigm-addicted in a post-paradigmatic Weltbilt. Douglas Pike was once fond of saying that the ignorance of Viet Cong organization is vincible ignorance -- but, clearly, that judgment was over-optimistic, as the ignorance has proved to be invincible. Now that at least hundreds of scientists would like to take advocates of anthropogenic climate change to court, we can see another case of invincible ignorance coming into clear manifestation.

I've struggled to understand invincible ignorance for forty years. To my current comprehension, beyond all the collective and personal psychological factors involved (transference and associated phenomenologies) and the psychophysiologic factors (e.g., glutamatergic neuronal etching), there are the “institutional constraints”. David Marr, for instance, while an intelligence officer in Viet Nam, observed that Viet Cong units in the field completely cut off from their opcon -- operational control, their command -- often acted as if they were receiving information and direction, when, clearly, they were not. But Marr, being an advisor in the field, was in no position to investigate implications of this (an observation currently highly relevant to understanding functional modalities of Al Qaeda & Associates). Though an officer, Marr simply did not have the requisite information access -- nor did he later acquire it as a Vietnam scholar. Those who did have the information access were generally enlisted personnel assigned to Political Order of Battle, Combined Intelligence Center, Vietnam, i.e., POLOB-CICV -- later Strategic Research and Analysis, MACV Headquarters, i.e., SRA/MACV-J2. In the military, rank is not always an indication of information access, and increased height in the hierarchy does not always confer greater information access. Moreover, security clearance is no guarantee of information access, either -- and not only because of special access, compartmented, code-word, clearance categories. And furthermore, permitted access is not necessarily practical access. David Marr had permitted access to the information required to investigate implications of his observation, but he had no practical access. The reason the enlisted personnel had the practical access Marr did not was because they sat at a nodal point of maximal raw data flows relevant to the issue to be investigated, and their jobs were to process that raw data. At any point in the hierarchy below this nodal point, there was insufficient raw data; at any point higher in the hierarchy -- or laterally in the hierarchy -- the relevant information was not available because it was filtered out by not being translated and/or disseminated, by interpretation, summary, estimate, and so on. In conversations about the Viet Nam war, I am often asked what was the highest rank I obtained while in country. E-5 is the answer, and the response is usually a dismissive scoff. This scoff is a proclamation of possession by invincible ignorance. No promotions for me in country. Explanations as to why various attempts to promote me to E-6 were blocked and why I refused the offer of a direct commission would be irrelevant not only because of the above, but also because critical nodal points for information access vary from one type of information to another as well as over time. The nodal point for information relevant to Marr's observation was initially at a small section of CICV, later a small section of MACV-J2. Generally speaking, it is only a “Pfc Wintergreen” who has genuine insight into this aspect of bureaucracies and keeps on top of it. Not only does rank have little correlation, but importance of position in the hierarchy at a given time is determined by the type of information relevant to the issue of interest. Robert McNamara, for instance, could never have made the observation made by David Marr; nor could he have investigated implications of the observation had it come to his attention and interest. It is even very unlikely that McNamara could have seen to it that an adequate investigation was made. Why? Because David Marr's observation was paradigm breaking, and if McNamara had tried to have it investigated, whatever efforts were made would have been scuttled at every step along the way, thus insuring persistence of invincible ignorance. The enemy strength issue was not such a case, because that question was thoroughly and accurately investigated, and implications of the findings suitably projected, instigation for the investigation coming from below; in the strength-estimate case, the scuttling came with attempts to disseminate results of the investigation and projected implications. That scuttling continued after the war was over, right through the Westmoreland vs. CBS trial, becoming a factor of persistence in invincible ignorance.

Not long after my return from the Viet Nam war, I found myself involved with Cornell University's Atmospheric Science Program, where another paradigm conflict was in evidence. Insight into non-normal science requires direct engagement with those challenging a paradigm and close attention to that to which they are subjected as a result their challenge; without such engagement, insight generally does not develop. From the very beginning of my period of engagement at Cornell, I had the uncanny sensation there was a “meaningful coincidence” between the two paradigm conflicts: implications of various Viet Nam war processes; atmospheric science invaded by chaos theory. About the time Cornell's Carl Sagan publicized The Nuclear Winter Hypothesis, he attempted to create a science court to bring to trial advocates of what he considered to be pseudoscience perspectives -- perspectives including all those not uniformitarian, gradualist, based on theories of interactive adjustment and punctuated equilibrium, unless a given process was rapidly disequilibrated by, say, global nuclear war. Later, with appearance of the Westmoreland vs. CBS trial, my sense of the uncanny meaningful coincidence grew enormously -- and now, even more so, with scientists wanting Al Gore prosecuted for publicizing the Greenhoused Summer Hypothesis (publicizing this thesis, I might add, thirty years after both Winter and Summer hypotheses were exhaustively discussed at Cornell). Sagan was an advocate of catastrophism by nuclear detonations on Earth, but insisted upon a uniformitarian outcome of nuclear detonations on Jupiter. And the history of this was conceptually related -- however remotely, or appearingly so -- to the observation made by David Marr about behavior of Viet Cong units. Investigations of shock-wave phenomena associated with atmospheric nuclear tests were not only part of the prehistory of The Nuclear Winter Hypothesis, but were also involved in origins of the paradigm crisis in atmospheric science, about which Carl Sagan was poorly informed. This vincible ignorance on part of Sagan -- clearly due to psychological factors and the institutional constraints of normotic science, possibly also to psychophysiologic factors -- has by now, it appears, become invincible. Atmospheric shock waves from atomic and nuclear explosions have acoustic components strikingly like those of naturally occurring atmospheric processes such as severe-storm genesis: i.e., acoustically-modified gravity-wave modes, or, in other words, infrasound. Documentation of this was paradigm destabilizing to atmospheric science because of what had earlier been done -- 1948, I believe, by Jule Charney -- to Louis F. Richardson's primitive equation set for atmospheric dynamics: such acoustic modes were filtered, i.e., treated as noise rather than signal. However much it may appear appropriate to regard acoustic modes as noise, some of the atmospheric physicists involved in studying shock-wave phenomena were stimulated to reconsider the role played by naturally occurring acoustically-modified gravity-wave modes in formation of severe storms (specifically, tornado genesis) and climate-shift dynamics. Out of this reconsideration grew the paradigm crisis. My sense of the relatedness of this to David Marr's observation grew more uncanny when I, having once gone through Special Forces medic training, became aware that Richardson produced his primitive equation set while working as an ambulance driver during WWI, that his notebook containing these equations was lost during a battle and found only after the war, and that he later applied his numerical forecast skills to war itself, developing a simultaneous differential equation model of competitive arms races still employed today (see: Arms and Insecurity: A Mathematical Study of the Causes and Origins of War, Boxwood, 1960).

Acoustically-modified gravity-wave modes, which are coherent, amplify with height and propagate faster than other types of atmospheric waves (the ostensible reason they were filtered from Richardson's primitive equation set); their best description involves m-valued functions in many respects similar to the m-valued functions employed by Schrödinger in arriving at the wave-function of his famous wave equation for quantum mechanics (the real explanation for why acoustic modes were filtered from Richardson's primitive equation set and the actual reason chaos theory later invaded atmospheric science: maintain the “classical limit” at whatever cost). This statement to a great extent over-simplifies all the issues, of course, but by its boldness conveys the essential core of the matter. Quite a few people during the Viet Nam war made observations similar to that made by David Marr, noted here. Intelligence analysts at Strategic Research and Analysis, SRA/MACV-J2, documented many functional modes of the Viet Cong (political) Infrastructure, i.e., the VCI, which could be characterized by employment of m-valued functions (in a manner reminiscent of Richardson's numerical modeling of arms races). The “coherent” behavior of Viet Cong units cut off in the field, as noted by Marr, was attributed by some analysts at SRA to animistic states of consciousness endemic to rural Viet Nam, adequate characterization of which would most assuredly involve use of m-valued functions. One is enticed by all this to expand the sense of Goethe's statement (quoted at the beginning of The Moon of Hoa Binh):

What you call the spirit of the age
Is in reality one's own spirit
In which the age is mirrored.

The Zeitgeist of an age is not only the small set of conceptual and feeling-toned preoccupations shared across all disciplines, arts, popular sentiments, but also those elements of invincible ignorance similarly widely shared by mediation of collective unconscious processes. Even collective behaviors related to climate shift are indentured to emotional blocks derivative of issues highlighted by experience of the Viet Nam war, not only the much more obvious preprogrammed knee-jerks constituting GWOT.

I'm not trying to make money off the gathering global crisis, so I make no effort to imagine exactly how it will play out. Moreover, I know from experience that I can't so imagine -- and not only because there are so many hidden factors to which I would never want to gain access, but also due to the fact that there inevitably will be totally non-rational behaviors involved. Collective unconscious gradients are somewhat readable by “active imagination” (in the technical Jungian sense) through giving carte blanche to uncensored fantasy, later systematically analyzed, but this does not give detail, for detail is largely determined by individual non-rational riffs on the collective unconscious gradients: the historical role of “great men”. For instance, in early-1968 to some enlisted and company-grade low-level intelligence analysts at Strategic Research and Analysis, SRA/MACV-HQ, it was obvious that the U.S. was very likely, in emotional knee-jerk to Tet-'68, to expand the geographical extent of the Viet Nam war, and that this would lead to some sort of utter catastrophe (this emotional hysteria, palpable in the hallways of MACV-HQ, and associated with an emerging stab-in-the-back myth, eventually, some years later, precipitated the U.S. sting leading to the Soviet Afghan war and, later yet, to the hysterical knee-jerk response to the Al Qaeda 9-11 sting against the U.S.). In early-1968, it appeared most likely an attempt would be made to put a block across the HCM Trail in Laos (later forced down GVN throats, down-sized to limited objectives, as the abortive operation Lam Son 719), so near-daily private discussions with Kelly Robinson over omelets in the first-floor MACV snack bar frequently touched upon Louis Lomax's book of 1967 entitled Thailand: The War That Is, The War That Will Be. At SRA, if not elsewhere in MACV-HQ, enough was known in the immediate post-Tet-'68 period about VCI (Viet Cong political infrastructure) organizational dynamics and NVN strategy to understand that Lomax's form of the domino-theory thesis was false, unless forced on the communists by U.S. actions, actions like expanding the geographical extent of the war. For those who do not believe such understanding existed at SRA, I can recommend the “SRA Newletters”, which were declassified in the early-1990s and were on the shelf at the U.S. Army Center for Military History, as well as our novel, The Moon of Hoa Binh, which recounts much of this. At SRA, we knew, for instance, how dense the LBNs (VC letter box numbers) were in the critical area of Laos and on into Thailand and even northern Burma (this is the VC LBNs, not those of the local communist parties). Snack-bar speculation centered upon how it would play out if hot aspects of the conflict were pushed over into Thailand as a result of placing a block across Laos. Remember that Gen. Westmoreland had asked LBJ for another 200,000 troops, and was turned down. Those troops would likely have primarily been used to try to put a block across Laos. But these speculative details turned out to be all wrong, as the actual expansion went to amplifying the bombing effort against COSVN (the corpus of communist supreme command elements for the South in constant motion largely over Cambodia-Vietnam border areas), which any knowledgeable person understood to be completely irrational, because COSVN, by virtue of its highly fractionated organization, constant movement, and multiplicity of alternative communication channels, had no actual discrete physical location and was, therefore, inherently unbombable -- though inessential hospital complexes, storage bunkers, and so on could be effectively bombed, without, however, seriously hindering functioning of the “headquarters”. Several hours with target analysts at CICV-Targets (Combined Intelligence Center, Vietnam) was enough to learn this elementary fact. And then, to top it off, there was the further non-rational behavior: the Cambodian incursion which empowered the Khmer Rouge. In any given situation, the list of possible non-rational individual-riff behaviors is virtually endless -- and the individual players change over time. Westy was oriented to the block across Laos; Kissinger-Nixon to bombing. Had a block been put across Laos, the Cambodian holocaust may well have occurred in Thailand. One example of one reason why I lost interest in trying to foresee details. I find sitting here in Cambodia today a very effective stimulus to thought on these matters.

I am not inclined to believe that “the problem is not absence of technical expertise; it's the presence of technical expertise”, but, like solipsism, that Luddite perspective has a grain of truth: the model of nature currently imposed on nature is so weak in regards to understanding functional integration that articulation of technical expertise leaves a great deal to be desired. As the Unified Science Movement withered on the vine of Logical Positivism in its back-reaction to Lukasiewicz logics, 2-cultures became n-cultures and…

---

Contact the page editor

Return to:

•Top

•Homepage