I write as I once drew, painted, and engaged art music: as an aid to inner work and spiritual realization. This started during the third year of high school, the time I seriously began making journal entries. Deep in the interior of Alaska, winter of 1961-2. A particularly harsh and frigid winter, a winter I spent much melancholy time walking alone in ice fog. The previous year, three of us had taken a specially-offered, monitored, self-study course in symbolic logic -- for no credit. A retired college professor who stayed on and on at our tiny, isolated SAC base high school took it upon himself to make such offerings. I still remember all this very well, given how important it was to the rest of my life. We called the rather frail old gentleman Mr. Moore, even though he had a Ph.D. The two fellow students were close friends of mine: Ben Ray Smith, a Native American from Texas; David LeBlanc, of Louisiana French-Italian extraction. These two went on to get university degrees in engineering. Intellectually, I had no trouble with symbolic logic; I excelled at Latin and this was simply another Latin, as far as I was intellectually concerned. It didn't sit well emotionally, however. Ben Ray and David had no emotional problems with symbolic logic, and had no idea what I was talking about when I tried to explain. I kept making stabs at describing a strange crampy feeling in my gut, an unpleasant pressure at the temples, and a dull heaviness that seemed to push my whole body down. For the duration of the period spent at my desk studying the subject, this was what I felt. Mr. Moore didn't have much to say about my emotional reaction. I got through the course okay, though I certainly didn't do quite so well as Ben Ray or David. Toward the end of the course, Mr. Moore suggested that we might like to take topology the next semester. He was particularly insistent that I might like to do this. Ben Ray couldn't, as his father had received transfer orders and thus he would be gone. David decided against it. So it was me alone with Mr. Moore to study topology. Midway through the topology text, I started to understand “involutory decomposition” and this gave me a window by which I could begin to understand my emotional reaction to symbolic logic. Retrospectively, I became aware that this sudden insight pretty much precluded my finishing college. The following semester, Mr. Moore monitored a self-study course on foundations of mathematics. My senior year was spent in Ohio, where, mostly, I read late into the night and attended as little as possible to the demands made upon me at school. I never completed a mathematics or natural science course at university. Not only in math and science did my very presence in the room seem to disturb the instructor, even in the soft sciences. Occasionally, my “mode of thought” actually came under explicit assault. I was pulled aside, warned against Unamuno, told to read Plato, forced to take a refresher elementary high-school-level math class, placed in an ethics class, told that the 9-hour graduate seminar in African systems of kinship and marriage I had enrolled in would only “increase my problems” with the prescribed curriculum, and so on. Clearly, unconsciously and consciously, I was regarded an appropriate subject for ephebiatrics.

What I understood halfway through the topology text studied under guidance of Mr. Moore is that I do not naturally think in connected sequences, but, rather, by pulling a given thought -- and I do mean “given” -- out of the one it is hidden in. Nests, not strings; and nests cannot be resolved to strings; though strings can be strung in networks through nests -- or, more accurately, can be viewed as already, always strung through nests. No time lapse; no time to be lapsed; no time within which lapsing could transpire. Walking in the ice fog, this was a notion I had no trouble sustaining. It was only later, slogging barefoot through Mekong delta rice paddies cloaked in night rain, that I came to understand that the “ice fog” was analogical abductive surrogate for the animistic identity transparency I had been inducted into almost ten years before Alaska as a preadolescent in Midori Gaoka, Kyushu, Japan. And it was only later yet, after Viet Nam, that I was able to realize no “I” can “pull a thought”, that involutory decomposition pulls an “I” to a thought -- or, more accurately, pulls an “I” into being as a thought: very definition of psychological “identification”, wherein i/I is not separated into infinite regress by self-observation. The self remembered by no-mind is no-self. Nothing new under the sun, quite literally: any involutory decomposition product is always already there as zero-point self-canceling composite. One thought implying the next by laws of syllogism, as in symbolic logic, simply was not my natural mode of thought; for me, the syllogism short-circuited thinking. Which is not to mention thinking in feeling-tones, instead of words or images or symbols. Were I to write as I think, such writing would have to be parentheses within parentheses within parentheses. This is my natural way of writing, which I endeavor to control, a way of writing that converges on exteriorized Musculpt -- a medium I have never had access to, except internally. With the realization halfway through the topology text, I began increasing difficulties reading in the normal way. I struggled with this my senior year in high school. Eventually, I came to study books in circular fashion without actually reading them: contemporary modes of thought and discursive exposition simply beat down the signals I receive.

Once, years later, with a sigh of frustration, John C. Lilly, M. D., told me, “After all these years, I realize I simply have no idea how the brain works.” This came -- immediately following my study of his “tank logs” while employed to survey his personal scientific archive -- in midst of a short discussion of a phenomenon sometimes associated with coming down from ketamine. There is -- whoomp, whoomp, whoomp -- gathering awareness of embodiment, but parts of the body cannot yet be fully distinguished, and, here's the phenomenon at issue, body parts of the “guide” cannot yet be fully separated from body parts of one's own embodiment. More: for some period during the “whoomp, whoomp, whoomp” one experiences body parts of the “guide” as one's own body parts with all the same reality-value, all the same ontic significance, that one normatively experiences one's own body parts. The “ketamine bond” -- “bond” being in several senses after-the-fact bleed-back of binary logic -- dissolving into mere embodiment, in turn, dissolving into -- oh, dread! -- separated bodies. And the palpable immediate sensory awareness of bodily unity (and body-part unity) simultaneous with cognitive knowledge of distinction is altogether without dissonance (and totally consonant with supersolid-phase superposition at physiological temperatures: body as learned behavior!). The logical wherewithal for recognition of contradiction in face of simultaneous awareness is absent: order of logical-value has yet to decompose/collapse that far. The first such experienced separation could conceivably be received by a highly rigid personality as being as psychologically traumatic as the physical trauma of surgical separation -- though Lilly had never heard of such a case. Trauma due to causes inverse to the trauma of sudden restoration of sight in the congenitally blind. Is “sight” seeing, or is blindness “seeing”? What is the “blind priest tradition” all about, anyway? Who, the sleepwalker? From my preadolescent sojourn in rural Japan, I knew exactly what this was: coming down from animistic identity transparency. I had gone through that thousands and thousands of times: “whoomp, whoomp, whoomp” every time I left the rice fields and reentered the traditional farm house remodeled and modernized for Western occupation. No exaggeration relative to an inadequately enculturated preadolescent caught between animism and modernism wherefore and whereupon whom object constancy had not become fully and constantly established. Exogenously introduced ketamine, at least, is not required. Looking over my shoulder leaving the fields for the house, I was not turned to a pillar of salt, but I could see the standing waves of each “whoomp” hanging in the gloaming. People are quite literally, and in more ways than one, pulled out of one another long “before” -- ontologically before, logically before -- they can stand shoulder to shoulder. Infinite regress in i/I is all encompassing, all ways and always. The “whoomp, whoomp, whoomp” is involutory decomposition, of course: spontaneous localization; collapse of the wave-function; de-fractalization to whole-integer dimensions. What “object system”? Infinite regress in observer state: involutory i/I decomposition to order of logical-value wherein “object system” is distinguishable. Autogenic brain discharge following upon autogenic brain discharge. And the (endogenous or exogenously introduced) drug's effects are facilitation of electron transport processes associated with neurotransmitter molecules diffusing synaptic junctions and/or electron transport at electrical ephaptic junctions, where, in both cases, it is an antidote to quenching by glutamate. “Transport”, while apropos of neurotransmitters, is, of course, a misnomer as regards electrons, which “possess” quantum nonlocality and non-simple identity. Excitatory depolarization and inhibitory hyperpolarization “demerged” -- not resurrected -- by the “whoomp, whoomp, whoomp” of involutory decomposition. Interface between invertebrates and vertebrates, between the ephapse and the synapse: kundalini and/or no-kundalini (or whatever you want to call it). My statement in response to John's observation about not understanding brain function was: “I believe that what we hypostatize to brain is not localized in the brain; that the localized brain has no capacity whatsoever for information processing: if there is any valid computer analogy at all, the brain is a dumb peripheral, a mere input-output device. The brain works from the inside out; it cannot be understood from the outside in.” There was no comment in return, only a quizzical smile. Maybe the blind deserve to be lead by the blind; or, maybe even, it is that the blind are best led by the blind.

I'm sorry, but as far as my present understanding allows, I am under the impression that I am unable to hang around for twenty generations until science finally positions itself to address fundamental issues concerning the nature of my present very personal existence, issues about which I must have reliable information in my current lifetime if that lifetime is to have any meaning to me. So, regardless of the prevailing scientific consensus, I form my own hypotheses and explore them as best I can with whatever itsy-bitsy resources available to me: by near-death experience, I have long known it's between me and cosmic background noise, and that what I carry to crossover-time -- life assessment Cinerama -- is by no means consensus, as cognitive products of enculturation don't even make it to the first span of the bridge. What appears likely to survive at least some portion of transit over the bridge are the few bare-percepts I have been able to accumulate: this I strongly suspect by the high quality of “intuitions” I have been vouchsafed in several areas. Focus on such matters is not just the concerns of a lifetime. One such personal hypothesis is that the physical brain is not contained by the physical brain. No fundamental quantum constituent of the physical brain exists independent of the properties designated “non-simple identity” and “quantum nonlocality”. Therefore, I must at least hypothesize that, if the brain is localizable, its localizability is an emergent property under the assumption of an objective linear-time, and a demergent property under the assumption of three-fold operator-time. I personally have chosen the latter assumption to explore as it seems to account for a greater proportion of the full spectrum of my personal experience than does the former, an assumptive perspective largely contained by the latter.

Steven Lehar's paper “Gestalt Isomorphism and the Primacy of Subjective Conscious Experience: A Gestalt Bubble Model” (Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26:4, March 2004, pp. 475-444) is the finest piece of work on perception I have read since coming across the papers of Luneburg and Blank during the mid-'70s. Having read into Koffka and Kohler during the early-'60s, after discovering Arnheim, I found myself practicing and trying to comprehend Husserl while taking studio art and music composition courses. There was some colored-hearing synaesthesia during this period and a lot of introspection in the studio upon visual perception in relation to many variables, an important one being extraocular muscle tension patterns (Edmund Jacobson's electromyographic studies of autosensory observation led me to attend to this) in producing contour and gesture sketches. Over a several-year period, I regularly practiced Jacobson's progressive and differential relaxation and applied the knowledge thus gained while working in the studio. For me the limit point in progressive relaxation was set by the extraocular muscles; even after several years of practice, cramping would occur, and what I experienced as minute oscillations of the eyeballs, somewhere near what I imagine was zero action-potential (which Jacobson maintained is physiologically equivalent to contentless awareness) -- and I could only get past this cramping and oscillation by holding my breath, and only for so long as I held my breath (Jacobson's various publications do not address this issue). A phenomenon I took to be related was associated with extraocular tension patterns in differential relaxation while producing contour drawings. In doing the drawing without looking at the paper on the easel, while visualizing the charcoal stick as my finger touching the model, I progressively slowed movement along the contour until I found I was unable to continue movement in a smooth curve, only by discrete minute jumps, which I associated with oscillations of the eyeballs and extraocular muscle cramping. Holding my breath, however, the impression of smooth continuous movement at the same rate of speed returned. I never figured out a physiological connection between the breath and the extraocular muscles, but there were auditory correlates of this in attempting to paint music, and I came to imagine visual space and auditory space as embedded in a synaesthetic feeling-space from which they are decomposed under the operations of binary logic. Not being able to figure out the connection, I began to read into the literature on the issue of continuous vs. discrete. What I found most interesting about Luneburg, was not so much the hyperbolic geometry of visual space aspect, but the “psychometric distance function”, the visual space “limiting velocity” plus “Lorentz contraction”, and the judgment by Luneburg and Blank that there is no absolute localization in binocular visual space. This suggested to me -- and it conforms to the isomorphism Lehar essays -- that relativistic-quantum factors must be involved in processing of percepts at the physiological level. I imagined wave-effect (today: phase-digit) quantum computing under m-valued logics, the various sensory dimensions involving dedicated spaces of decomposition, where the continuous holistic aspects are connected to the discrete physiological point-sets (H. Hyden's frequency-specific intraneuronal DNA, cell arrays, cortical module architectures, et cetera) via something like the Regge calculus (which provides an n-dimensional lattice equivalent to a spacetime curvature configuration). It occurs to me, in aftermath of reading Lehar's paper, that these notions may shed some light on the issue of “brain anchoring”. The notion that the brain anchors information processing, supports the idea that the brain is not contained by the brain: the ₁T₂-order of logical-value anchors _µT_m-logically-valued wave-effect logical processing to particulate matter spontaneously localized (atemporally and Platonically demerged) to gestalt bubble by autogenic brain discharge.

For my me, consciousness is not the problem, as my Whitmanian “other I am's” are not stuck on finding a way to do without “mind stuff”. Quite to the contrary, the real problem is: “How possibly could there be a selfsame physical world to become?” And can my “I's” _iT_I…n+1 (simply a subjectivistic i/I restatement of Lukasiewicz's logics L_n+1, putting them into Postian T-notation such that actualized and available identities -- as opposed to truth-values -- are clearly represented) have any certainty, indeed any conviction, that such a world actually is such that it could become? And is there any meaning to the word “actually”? How is it my “I” ever managed to get it's _iT_I…n+1 embodied, and by what “doing habituation” inconscience does it manage to remain so? If your you has never “remembered itself”, in the Platonic “anamnesis” sense, far more than how it is taught à la Gurdjieff, then “mind stuff” surely is a problem, of that my “I” has no doubts. Science, really, by its plethora of tacit assumptions, most of which have never been and never will be identified, is not only a way to focus down into your ₁T₂-cognitive faculties only, but is a way to constrict self-awareness, other-awareness, being and becoming into an infinitesimal of their _iT_I…n+1 embodiment… Really! But, “actually”, these sorts of concerns are clearly no concern at all to people who spend ten hours a day yelling into their cell phones.

The whole issue of scientifically detectable vs. scientifically non-detectable has been a non-issue for almost a century. Science-as-we-have-known-it more or less ceased to exist with publication of Max Planck's late-19th century (just prior to his famous paper of 1900, if, dredging back to the '60s, memory serves) essay on the distinction between world and world-picture in physics, a paper that can be regarded as anticipating later debate on the quantum measurement problem. Since that paper, “fine science” became, essentially, folk science plus technology research (with a heavy military signature), just as fine art and art music became, essentially, folk art and folk music entertainment -- because issues of actual contemporary import to prevailing Weltanschauung largely ceased to be considered in each of these “disciplines”. Overwhelmingly, the “objects” of collective psychological “displacement” became the subject matters considered. Just as infinite regress is the nature of the case in self-observation (autosensory, autoemotive, autocognitive), so, in scientific measurement, is infinite regress the nature of the case. Any and every measurement is measurement on a Koch curve: the more accurate the measurement, the more that which is being measured simply is not there to be measured: it becomes more and more a fractal nest of Cantor dust and holes. But this is not only related to Heisenberg uncertainty; it is also related to Luneburg's “psychometric distance function” for hyperbolic binocular visual space, Lorentz contraction near the limiting velocity of visual space (which is related to eye movement, not the speed of light), and the resultant impossibility of absolute localizability in visual space -- and correlates of these in the spaces of other sensory dimensions, such as auditory space. While there is no doubting that Schenker, Zuckerkandl, and Stockhausen tried to build auditory space on intervals rather than tones, how far did they actually get with this Cantorian program, and how thoroughly was it based upon reductive phenomenology of actual lived experiences of time (musically modeled)? Not very far, and not very thoroughly, and not by lack of access to tools -- or even to the requisite concepts. By 1907, Lukasiewicz was well on the way to producing the necessary logics. By the early 1930s, Gödel had blown ₁T₂-logic-constructed systems out of the water -- and along with them measurement tools based thereupon. When taking measurements on a Koch curve, the measuring rod employed has to have the same order of logical-value as that which is being measured; otherwise, the more closely you measure, what you are measuring becomes nothing but nothing (mere holes, holes in your logic). Awareness of this can be avoided only by “hiding behind” ₁T₂ logic. When using a “surface as measure”, that surface has to be a covering not only of the correct Riemannian-branching bridge-dimension, but also of the correct Lukasiewiczian logical-order: Heisenberg's uncertainty inequalities do not take this into account. Nor does the frequency comb technique of precision spectroscopy in quantum optics, that technique used to determine stability of universal physical constants. This “not taking into account” in quantum optics is a “hiding behind ₁T₂ logic”. Frequency combing by lasers in measuring values of universal physical constants is directly related to evaluation of the range of applicability of Heisenberg's uncertainty inequalities: insofar as the universal constants are m-valued -- as M theory of superstring theory is converging upon, and not even to mention _µT_m-logically-valued -- measurement at any and every scale level is on a Koch curve, is “quantum” measurement. This specific form of “hiding behind” has been going on since the early-1960s. Moreover, since the same frequency combing techniques of “hiding behind” are used to more and more accurately calibrate linear-time-bound clocks and to more and more closely pinpoint by global positioning satellite ostensibly localizable locations, they have become essential to maintenance of the fiction that world and world-picture are indistinguishable. Given that Riemannian-branching bridge-dimensions and Lukasiewiczian logical-orders have frequency and phase correlates, laser-beam intersections are obvious models of certain aspects of the measurement process via-à-vis the object-system(s), while the “gestalt bubble(s)” of Steven Lehar is an obvious candidate for isomorphic modeling of observer state(s). What, then, is the foremost convivial tool for experimental study of the “quantum” measurement problem? Musculpt! Dynamic, polymorph, colored forms projected by intersecting laser beams, these intersections, by frequency and phase correlates, corresponding to surface-as-measure Riemannian-branching bridge-dimensions and Lukasiewiczian logical-orders. Add to this an auditory space based on intervals, not tones. This is exteriorized Musculpt (projection of “gestalt bubbles”). Now, place a Musculpt projection dome as a dolphin's melon on the shell of a flotation-isolation Lilly tank equipped with multi-dimensional biofeedback, hydrophone speakers, and computerized memory storage. Use this experimental setup in stress-oriented training of a human pod focused upon learning sonic-visioning dolphin-speak (rather than teaching dolphins to speak human) and you are developing the capability to compare “gestalt bubbles” in “quantum” measurement across species, which will produce additional data as regards the issue of world vs. world-picture in physics. And if you want to investigate the various sensory dimensions involving dedicated spaces of decomposition, where the continuous holistic aspects are connected to the discrete physiological point-sets (H. Hyden's frequency-specific intraneuronal DNA, cell arrays, cortical module architectures, et cetera) via something like the Regge calculus (which provides an n-dimensional lattice equivalent to a spacetime curvature configuration), then, just as described in the “tank-logs” of John C. Lilly, M.D., the user of the tank thus equipped systematically investigates usage of the endogenous antidote to glutamaturic neuronal etching (such etching being the neurophysiologic correlate to “hiding behind” ₁T₂ logic and ₁T₂-logic measuring sticks). And if you don't want to stop hiding, then, obviously, you scientifically bludgeon anyone who does by beating them with a ₁T₂-logic measuring stick -- and keep on gobbling your MSG. Which is exactly what will continue to be the case until “death from above” makes such hiding no longer possible. Or “death by anesthetic cocktail gas”: the fact that the human species engaged in “usage of the endogenous antidote to glutamaturic neuronal etching” at lethal dose to kill 130 hostages and inflict residuals on hundreds of others in the 2002 Nord-Ost theater terrorist-hostage incident, while suppressing non-lethal-dose usage in conjunction with Musculpt studies of the “quantum” measurement problem is a prefiguration, a marker, a readout on the collective unconscious processes thematically orchestrating human affairs. Personally, I no longer have the patience to sit and listen to the bellyaching.

But there is no such thing as a building block of the nervous system, no correct level of analysis, no highest level of integration. As Edmund Jacobson concluded after sixty years of experimental research electrophysiologically coupled to autosensory observation, concluded in his swansong (Biology of Emotions, C. C. Thomas, 1967, p. 91):

According to the present argument, the control of mental activity and of behavior has never been experimentally identified and will not be recorded in any portion of the organism, because it resides in the integrated totality.

Since the discovery of the existence and functions of transmitter and other neuropeptide molecules, it has been impossible to consider the notion that the neuron constituent of neural tissue is the elemental component for neurological processing; and since the discovery of the existence and functions of intermolecular electron transport chains and enveloping free-electron gases, it has been impossible to consider the notion that the molecule is the elemental component for neurological processing; and since the Aspect experiments have so strongly supported spatial nonlocality of “particles” like electrons, it has been impossible to consider the notion that a nervous system -- composed of tissue which is composed of cells, which are composed of molecules, which are composed of spatially-nonlocal elementary particles -- contains itself or is contained by itself; and since it has been experimentally demonstrated that not only elementary particles, but atoms, and some molecules, can be in more than one place at a given time (molecules, atoms, and particles in Gebserian “concretion of time”), it is clear the issue of the very meaning of neurological selfsameness cannot be clarified in ₁T₂-logic terms. Not redundant information reduced to a single value (compaction), but multiple non-redundant single-values stacked on a single m-valued point. And over sets of such m-valued points, not redundant tautological marches reduced to a single syllogism, but multiple non-redundant, non-tautological ₁T₂ syllogisms stacked on a single _µT_m-numbered Gödel number: lattices within lattices within lattices, scales within scales within scales to the most-dense sheet as the m-logically-valued reference space of Musculpt. Non-self-identical, non-selfsame, numbers! Each such number being an m-logically-valued proposition. Fact is, the object of perception is not the object of perception: the higher the order of logical-value employed, the greater the number of available Husserlian horizons and the greater the number of profiles actualized: _profilesT_horizons. Appearance in immediacy of the “object” of perception differs from one order of logical-value to the next. Hume's or whomever's “sense data” is not the same data as the “hyletic data”. The space of each sense modality is, at higher orders of logical-value than ₁T₂, cross-correlated with those of the others and embedded in a synaesthetic space of feeling-tones, from which these dedicated spaces are decomposed. Feeling-space of “Kandinsky pure feeling” at cardinality _CT_C is a “pure land” articulation landscape empty of all concrete contents and equivalent to Namkai Norbu's “the base state of Tzog-chen” (i.e., the m-logically-valued reference space at _rdzogsT_chen [Ti meaning spontaneous or effortless; rdzogs, completeness; chen, wholeness: as translated by Herbert V. Guenther, Matrix of Meaning, Shambhala, 1984, p. 209]). The most-dense “sheet”, the most-densely-packed space, is under the highest order of logical-value, and thereby is the most empty of decomposed concrete contents: zero equals infinity logically and ontologically “before” zero does not equal infinity. Guenther's greatest gaffe was to attempt to assimilate rdzogs-pa chen-po to a dissembled quantum mechanics. Feeling-space empty of concrete contents is a space of quality, not quantity. Quantity -- non-selfsame and selfsame -- decomposes out of quality. This is “there” to be seen. Seen. Seen and heard. When in an elaborate state of empathy Van Gogh paints an old pair of shoes, “projectively” imbuing them with feeling-tones, if not affect-charge, this is no mere stylistic virtuosity; he paints exactly what he sees in form-line configuration. The real virtuosity is in the brain-state achieved permitting such seeing! The Analytical Cubist superposition (concretion of time) is a similar case -- painting of what is directly perceived, perceived by someone, Alfred Jarry, maybe -- but a case less reliant upon empathic processes than is the Van Gogh case. And it is not just a matter of the nervous system as contemporary neuroscience supposes: it’s the neuromuscular system. The royal road to restoration of conscious readout on processing at higher orders of logical-value is differential relaxation of the extraocular and laryngeal muscles to near zero action-potential on the electromyograph (as Jacobson and his colleagues documented over and over and over long ago: see, for instance, his earth-shaking paper on the training of experts at autosensory observation, “On Meaning and Understanding”, American Journal of Psychology, XXII, pp. 553-77, 1911).

No, no. I'm too old, much too old for that. I haven't had a truly new-thought-for-me or a thoroughly transformed impression for probably twenty-five years. This is something for a young person, someone with a great deal of physical endurance, psychological perseverance, dogged obstinacy, over-abundance of energy. Someone still capable of ingurgitating an ingénue's outrage at the consensually imposed so-called human condition. When one is enculturated, one is made part of a lynch mob -- no mere SmartMob, no crowd with wisdom: Mesmer's force-field literally grabs hold of you, and you can only discover its presence, feel it physically, if you push strongly against the imposed cultural gradient. Anyone who has not so pushed denies existence to the Mesmerism: calls it a hallucinated erethism devoid of veridical properties. The inductive capacity of this gradient is enormous; only a young person can throw him or herself against it with sufficient resolution to accomplish something of consequence: a new thought, a transformed impression. If one has not done this by age thirty, it is very unlikely one ever will; and one's capacity for effective resistance to the induction falls off precipitously from that age -- as I think can be seen in the work of Husserl, who was already into his mid-forties when, by intertextuality, he came up with the notion of epoché.

As the content of MOON clearly indicates, I am not a believer in Husser-liana, but in Dillon-liana (thought you picked up on all the allusions in “Studies for Liana”, eh?). Actually, it's more complicated than that. Husserl came from the Anabaptist Jakob Hutter's Moravia, and my ancestral tree is well-rooted in immigrant territory of Hutter's Mennonite sect: south-central Pennsylvania. So, Hutter-liana might be more apropos (or maybe even Huss-liana, if not Hussar-liana). As numerous essays reprinted in Husserliana indicate, Husserl, in formulating the notion of epoché, or “bracketing”, conflated experience with Brentano's intentionality, and, in making experience a first person narrative -- not given exclusivity by the authors of MOON: there being collective occasions of experience -- restricted sentenced subjects to those with simple identity and selfsameness. “Bracketing” is actually an attitude, not a mere notion; it's a kind of formalization of surly youthful contempt, an insolence carried like a mantra, an existential chip on one's shoulder, an attitude of universal doubt in regards to the world of externals, a doubting of all tacit existence assumptions one can discover. Fine, if you can do it, really do it, not just think about what it must be like to actually do it as lived immediate experience (the immediate not being moment-to-moment, instant-to-instant). And if you really do it in walking meditation while ambling down the street, it will be apparent in the swagger-and-glide. By no means a mere head thing! Unfortunately, Husserl did not “bracket” the world of internals -- which he had come to regard a world of mere psychologisms (Frege had come down hard on Husserl while he was in his early-30s for making arithmetic into mere psychologism, and he succumbed to this peer pressure which is integral to higher enculturation compliance). Such weak knees were unfortunate for us all, because Husserl began, actually prefaced, his reductive treatment of internal time consciousness by making explicit, but not doubting, which is an essential aspect of “bracketing”, the tacit assumption of an “existing time” (so as to comply with Brentano's notion that time is in remembering, not in the cave of Platonic amnesis) -- and then, the following year in this “existing time”, he called his method of reduction to the cave-tunnel of linear-time “transcendental”. Certainly, Moravian Jakob Hutter and Bohemian John Huss would not have agreed to this designation.

In his early-40s, finally, Husserl got around to Cartesian universal doubt (of externals only, as the rest were mere psychologisms) so as to move forward his program to reconstruct views of reality on a thoroughly ₁T₂-logical rational basis, which, from his studies in higher mathematics, he took to be equivalent to the corpus of systems of inference and their myriad collections of possible intents, their units of consciousness as revealed and represented by elements of sentences, sentences, and, more rigorously, by sub-propositions, propositions. This is pretty much a head thing, so actual “lived experience” for Husserl pretty much became thinking about what experience pretty much must be. 1906, or thereabouts. Now, this must is very important, particularly if we look at what was transpiring at the time next door to Husserl, so to speak. By this time in the cave of Platonic amnesis, 1906, that is, Lukasiewicz was well on the way to demonstrating the notion of necessary inference, of logical determinism -- a notion Husserl never “bracketed”, never placed under epoché, a notion he simply employed to carry forward his project to “transcendentally” reconstruct on a “rational” basis acts of explicating views of reality -- not necessary, not determined, and not really pretty much a matter of must. In challenging Gestapo-logic in this fashion, Lukasiewicz, the logician -- the man likely most responsible for Polish jokes -- truly engaged in transcendental behavior, in the trans-algebraic Abelian sense, for, in due course, he demonstrated the ₁T₂ must-logic employed by Husserl to be merely one of an infinitude of Cantorian infinitudes of logics mostly missing a must. And, at the very moment this was transpiring, when Husserl was occupying himself with ₁T₂-logic must-distinctions between object and objectless and as-if-object (which is not half-object), between content and a contentless that simply can't be, between intentional and non-intentional, between propositional and sub-propositional and what they must mean as lived experiences (of thinking about what experience must be), Rilke was capturing the plastic essence (not the must-logic) of the physical object as a simultaneous stack of occurrences in spatialized time: in Ding-Gedicht, the object poem. Rilke, master of percepts, called this form of “capturing” “making objects out of fear”: fear, like pain, in Husser-lianan terms, being a non-intentional unit of consciousness. So, here we have the physical object as non-intentional -- at least according to Rilke. And at the very moment Rilke was reaching this m-logically-valued, non-intentional, indeterminate conclusion from actual lived perceptual experiences (not thoughts about what lived perceptual experiences must be), T. S. Eliot was a student at Harvard studying the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and laying the foundation for his Wasteland of “half-objects”: a world of non-intentional physical objects made out of fear. And at the very moment all this was transpiring, Picasso and Braque (likely at the prompting of Alfred Jarry, another master of percepts) were representing on their Analytical Cubist canvases “a simultaneous stack of occurrences in spatialized time” -- what Gebser came to call the “concretion of time” -- that stack being the “collection” of “facets” of the physical half-object made out of fear (fear of m-logically-valued animistic identity transparency) . Of course, the “Analytical” (an art historian's misnomer) Cubist painter represented only a few of the transfinite collection of “facets” to any given physical object (the image-gestalts one can get of it from an infinite number of positions in space or spatialized passive linear-time). These “facets” are not to be confused -- except under superficial explanation -- with Husserl's “profiles” and “horizons”: the facets are made out of “sense data” while the profiles and horizons are made out of “hyletic data” (sense data exist under passive passing linear-time only, while profiles exist under second-order nonlinear complex-imaginary operator-time and horizons exist under third-order nonlinear complex-imaginary operator-time). Moreover, numbered Gödel numbers number hyletic data, while Gödel numbers number sense data. All very confusing, very confusing -- I know. It's not just an Existentialist matter of “just do it”, just do intentional act-experiences, rise up, define by rebel-act, but of “just see it”, just see the set empty of intentionality and contents: naked seeing of the bare as a seeing of seeing. In the traditional Japanese manner, stare at the setup, the “stones” of unknowing set such that the rock-gestalt has gei. See gei? No? Well, you give it a try, then; try setting the stones yourself -- and we'll see.

Contentless awareness at zero action-potential (non-doing, just seeing-being): naked registration of the consciousness field which any iota of intentionality instantly quenches (decompositional collapse of the wave-function of superposed bare reality to an aspect (an aspect of an aspect being a “facet”: introjection of the aspected physical object): sentencing subject or implied subject; sentencing direct object, indirect object, or implied object; sentencing to imputation of sub-propositional meaning or of propositional meaning): why of “Eight No's”. “The Bride Stripped Bare”: the “Bride” is not meaning, she is stripped of meanings, prescriptive enculturated meanings. Contentless, objectless, non-intentional fields (not units) of consciousness, propositionless, no sentencing possible: base state of Musculpt. No sentencing: the no-mind that is not absence of mind, but presence of the multivalue. Scary, so scary, this absence of must-ing. Why? Because I said so! The must is just such a “because”. It's papa-stuff, daddy-stuff, transference stuff: infra-psychology, if not infra-sex. Can of worms: Pandora's box. Getting the transference, the projective-identification, out of subject-object relations, out of the fundamental social unit, out of the very idea such a “unit” is even possible, is god-awful scary for people who have only three or four Kantian categories of understanding to employ with their ₁T₂ logic only. Think of people who live actual lived experiences in a cosmic manifold, a universe, on a planet filled with natural surround and “build” their senses of identity upon transference and signify this infantile-compulsive built environment with flags, and transfer it from generation to generation as glutamate-etched bodies of learned behavior, culture, any remnant of which they monumentalize, park in theme-parks, battlefield parks, historical parks, projected artificial neural networks of the third kind. No wonder some of them might think environmentalism a mere attempt to resurrect animistic identity transparency. Ugh! Collectivism, that's what it must be. Worth killing over; worth world war upon; worth total war about. Collective annihilation (by projective-identification), now that's the kind of identity transparency I can understand, understand with my logic, my ₁T₂ logic, the kind of identity hydrogen bombs were made to verify: hydrogen economy of the future of linear-time stop. Huxleyan, just Huxleian. Time must have a stop, as Aldous Huxley titled his book.

I do not know for sure upon what precursors Marcel Duchamp relied for his Large Glass on which The Bride's bachelors stripped her bare. But I regard Duchamp's Large Glass a precursor to, or in synchronicity with, Rice Pereira's “layered-transparent” (when exactly she “originated” this perception, this thoroughly transformed impression, I do not know: conception is much, much easier than perception). And Pereira's layered-transparent is certainly a precursor to my understanding of the m-logically-valued reference space for Musculpt. I became aware in the early-'70s that one likely candidate for a Duchamp precursor is Catholic Cabalism. If you are really interested in this, I recommend Frater Achad's Q. B. L. or The Bride's Reception, as well as his The Anatomy of the Body of God, being The Supreme Revelation of Cosmic Consciousness, explained and depicted in graphic form. Samuel Wiser, I think, reprinted these several times, beginning in the 1960s. Both books were written at Collegium ad Spiritum Sanctum (Chicago, Illinois) about the same time Duchamp placed the urinal in the Armory Show. In this conception, according to Frater Achad's interpretation, The (virgin) Bride is the mother of Ever-Coming Son fathered by No-Thing, any particular universe logically and ontologically devolving atemporally by mathematical involutes in the width-to-length proportion of the Vesica Piscis, a feminine symbol (virgin, the Savior's wound), i.e., 1:1.732 or One to the Square Root of Three, the 1 and the 3 taken as 13 = AChD = Unity. An approximation to this proportion is 15:26::1:1.733. Qabalistically speaking, 15 is the Gematric numeration for IH (name of God), while that of 26 is IHVH (formula for the Tree of Life's involutory decomposition from No-Thing to the Ever-Coming Son via intercession of The Bride -- and return). It hardly seems plausible that Duchamp was unaware of this manner of representing universal process. The involutory half of the Vesica is formed of ten Yods, or unit forms, motes, dusti, dust particles, ophthalmological cones: the Sephitoth, or “warm golden dust of Supermind”, ten in equilateral triangular array constituting the Pythagorean Holy Tetractys, later called Pascal's Triangle, from which the binomial theorem and the Gaussian normal distribution both can be derived. The human species never completely lost contact with m-logically-valued animistic modes of comprehension, no matter how intensely suppressed by glutamate flood (which The Flood symbolizes by unconscious processes of projective identification) and resultant lacuna-on-the-brain. One means of cultivating such modes was the Qabalah, and during the Middle Ages this was also done with compass and straight edge employed according to convention: squaring the circle, trisection of an angle, duplication of a cube, and so on. In thought and practice of the Pythagorean “schools” (more like clandestine orders), each letter of the Greek alphabet was associated with a point-set lattice (in two or three dimensions, depending on sophistication of the user), a set of Yods, and each Yod in the point-set lattice was numbered according to convention. A sentence was represented as a series of point-set transforms by which the involved lattices appeared in serial march. One sentence followed another by the geometrical figure of the initial sentence generating by transforms (most esoterically, surely, by topological transforms) the geometrical figure of the subsequent sentence. (If Stan Tenen is truly onto something in Kabbalistically depicting each Hebrew letter as a topological form, a particular twisted band disposed in 3-space, then it is possible that each such letter, each such universe, required two or more Greek words or sentences to semantically encapsulate: inner Musculpt certainly works in a similar fashion: thought in transformations of the form devolves to speakable language: the unspeakable and the speakable, and not just in the inequalities of a bell-ringer's quantum mechanics.) The numbers of the sentences could also be given and combined, according to convention: one origin of numerology and cryptography. This is, essentially, Gematria, a means of secret communication employed by the Pythagoreans, and later by a clandestine subversive sect: suicidal Christian revolutionaries intent on overthrowing the Roman Empire. The Sermon on the Mount, for instance, was encoded by Gematria and thus moved throughout the Empire. Jesus, as a Fisher of Men, was depicted in a boat, the boat being The Bride as a Vesica Piscis, the net thrown to the side of the boat being indicated by conventional compass-arc-and-line procedures. There were many levels to such messages (logically speaking: m-levels), from those most spiritual (intemporal cosmogenesis model: Kairos) to those most politically practical (recruitment guidelines and instructions for underground network formation, both derivative of the atemporal cosmogenesis model). The lattices could be iterated into network coverings, spun into hexagonal snowflake crystals (No-Thing seen in six degrees of freedom: three of space; three of operator-time: doubled-three being the diamond inscribed within the intersecting arcs of the Vesica, seen on planar view, a transformed Seal of Solomon, solo man, one-and-only “Real-I”): “He saith to the snow: 'Be thou the earth'.” (Job, 37:6::snow:earth, Bible as one of the analogues of All-That-Is in Testament as Frequency Domain, the New Frequencies derivative of the Old Frequencies upon cosmic-climatic phase shift -- these frequencies being cascaded through the center of the galaxy to the sun, and from the center of the sun as variations in solar cycle communicated to planets by solar wind as complex angular momentum modulations impressed upon global atmospheres -- another language family, semiotically embodying these frequency modulations, demergent with each such cosmic-climatic shift, demergent by frequency modulation of intraneuronal DNA, quantum-wave repository of “universal grammar [semiotic]”.) Crystal-lattice prism as ground-state, as base state, as m-logically-valued reference space: 37:6, frequencies in frequency space, meanings long since lost, lost as the conventions of numbering numbers of the form fell away. Duchamp certainly traveled in these realms to one degree or another. Historically, though, the binary mind, whatever its institutional affiliation, has never gotten with the program: The Book, whichever The Book, in whichever language of formants, “looked through” as a layered-transparent of superposed frequencies in time-independent Schrödinger compendium.

Choice to develop enormous complexity of mistaken detail, though a foremost criterion for ease of entry into the professional caste, is not actually a mark of distinction, and when that choice is made it generally is an indication of psychological subterfuge involving circumstances transcending the individual making the choice. If sometimes doing nothing is more creative than doing something that is the wrong thing, we can all be certain that thus doing nothing will advance no career. By the time Husserl got to Kronecker and Weierstrass in Berlin, Kronecker had browbeaten his student become his former student, Georg Cantor, to the edge of nervous breakdown -- exploiting to the hilt the psychological transference at heart of the Ph.D. preceptor-candidate relationship -- yet, Husserl, without reservation, absorbed Wilhelminian mogul Kronecker's an-academic's-businessman qua a-businessman's-academic attitude toward the Cantorian universe of “mereology” (science of part-whole relations): the holographic and animistic identity transparency embedded in the very definition of a denumerable transfinite set. The psychodynamics of Type-A Kronecker's relationship with introspective-mystical Cantor are mentioned in passing only, as off-the-couch instances of transference relationships generally are noted only in passing, because to note them otherwise would inevitably lead to the necessity to look beyond person-to-person transference into the subject-(physical)object level of transference, a dimension of object-constitution on the hyletic data by projective-identification assiduously ignored by Husserl in arriving at the notions of “profiles” and “horizons”. Not to mention processes of disidentification Cantor most assuredly underwent in producing the corpus of ideas he did -- all the while suffering Kronecker. It is sometimes suggested that the stress thrust upon Cantor by Kronecker was likely responsible for Cantor's “seizures”. This suggestion, I regard another psychological escape mechanism, as in all likelihood Cantor's “seizures” had absolutely nothing to do with Kronecker (even if nervous exhaustion did), were unconnected to nervous collapse and were not actually epileptiform seizures (anymore than John Nash and Yayoi Kusama suffer[ed] schizophrenia or migraine hallucinations), but full-blown “autogenic abreactions” occasioning “autogenic shift” to m-logically-valued brain states (wave-effect processing outputted to conscious awareness) permitting direct perception of what Husserl came to only in thought about general properties of inference, came to only in part, and designated with the terms “profiles” and “horizons”.

Husserl's turn-of-the-twentieth-century Logical Investigations not only turned its back on the psychological orientations to number developed in his postdoc dissertation, but, in line with what he had earlier absorbed from Kronecker, in no way incorporated Cantor's insights into mereology. As Maria Louise von Franz's Number and Time (written three-quarters of a century later by one of C. G. Jung's most adept followers), read sidesaddle with Ignacio Matte Blanco's The Unconscious as Infinite Sets (published at virtually the same time as was von Franz's book), clearly implies, in doing his complexity of mistaken detail, Husserl contributed immensely to setting back the project to understand the collective unconscious, number, time, and foundations of logic, none of which can be understood independent of the others. And it is not at all surprising that Husserl went on to further Cartesian Meditations just as Nazification of Germany was going into high gear: incantations in hopes of exorcising what he personally had contributed to development of by stalling insight into implications of Cantor's discoveries. It is in this circumstance we look for insight into the collective occasion of experience wherein individual decision was taken to develop enormous complexity of mistaken detail. Kronecker, by overseeing in the fashion he did both Cantor and Husserl, was a pivotal player in creation of the deeper dimensions to precipitating factors for Nazification.

Though reductive phenomenology -- were it actually perceptually practiced, rather than being thought concerning what such practice must be -- is ostensibly resonant with gestalt psychology, I would argue it tended, historically, as thought and not actually practiced, to suppress m-logically-valued modes of comprehension, if not so decisively as did utilitarianism, pragmatism, behaviorism, positivism. As a teenager and undergraduate in Leipzig, Husserl attended lectures by Wilhem Wundt (founder of the gestalt approach eventually yielding Steven Lehar's paper “Gestalt Isomorphism and the Primacy of Subjective Conscious Experience: A Gestalt Bubble Model”, mentioned above) and ever thereafter, reinforced by Kronecker -- as Derek notes in MOON (Vol. 1, pp. 695-6) -- opposed the Wundtian program of cataloging introspective objects: just what Musculpt memory store by isolation-flotation tank would do. This opposition on part of Husserl was not only Cartesian; it was also very Anglo. Husserl took speech acts as somehow equivalent to experience, equivalent to the experience of an experimental scientist speaking his inferences from systematic observation. He was following J. S. Mill here, just as did early Wittgenstein, the Wittgenstein who moved to Russell's England, the Wittgenstein before the Wittgenstein of “philosophical disease”. What Husserl sought was a general theory of the scientist as linguistic machine, the normal-science scientist, not the paradigm-breaking scientist. Creative thought never transpires on the level of speech act, as mathematician Jacques Hadamard's An Essay on the Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field clearly demonstrates, read sidesaddle with Edward de Bono's Lateral Thinking and Rudolf Arnheim's Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. And in developing his logical investigation of linguistic acts in Brentano-intention as somehow equivalent to experience (as the only units of consciousness worthy of consideration, if consciousness can be considered in Boolean truth-table units as opposed to, say, Jamesian streaming waves), Husserl rejected Cantor while simultaneously embracing Descartes' dictum: “I think, therefore I am.” And if one rejects Wundt, one certainly has to embrace Descartes as a psychological defense mechanism. Why? Because Cantor will sneak up on you, if you don't, sneak up on you and take away your claim to “I am” which thinking supposedly bestows the right to make. A whole section of “Derek's Journals” printed in MOON (Vol. 1, pp. 692-704) is devoted to this, but a more recent publication provides an account clearly similarly influenced by the Zen take on Descartes' “cogito” (best provided, perhaps, by Hubert Benoit's Let Go: Theory and Practice of Detachment According to Zen published by Samuel Wiser during the mid-'70s when von Franz and Matte-Blanco were also published). Following is an observation on the central issue as given by Stephen Jourdain (Radical Awakening: Cutting Through Conditioned Mind, Inner Directions, 2001, pp. 19-20):

“Each man, I suppose, at least once in his existence, has stopped short, as if thunderstruck, confronted by this mystery of mysteries: his inner being becoming apparent to himself -- confronted by the phenomenon of consciousness.

“I know me! And what would remain of this 'me' without that consciousness?!

“Such an encounter is much more than an eye-opener; it's a shock…

“The consciousness of 'me' seemed clearly infinite… it reproduced itself in an infinite regression… I know me engendered I know me knowing me which engendered I know me knowing me knowing me which engendered… and engendered…

“This process didn't stretch toward infinity; it attained it…

“One fact intrigued me enormously. In reality, the process presented a challenge much more to my life than to my curiosity. The consciousness of me was an infinity, that infinity existed in me, realized itself in me -- that was undeniable… and yet, personally, humanely, I only succeeded in penetrating its fringe. I know me was accessible. I know me knowing me was too. I know me knowing me knowing me was yet again; however it had already become enormously difficult. In fact, it was an insurmountable barrier. The infinity of the consciousness of me existed in my mind and spirit but, in a way I was separated from it, excluded. As a human being, I couldn't possibly accept it.

As the rest of the book clearly indicates, Jourdain has mightily struggled with this anavastha, this infinite regress in the selfhood, and the disidentification encounter with it promulgates. (Incidentally, standard histories of mathematics don't take account of the notion of anavastha in pinpointing origins of the notion of the infinite, just as treatments of Nirvana and its precedent states in tribal animism are not taken into account in pinpointing origins of the notion of zero.) But how is a mathematician or scientist to have conviction that Jourdain verified in some manner, during some lived experience over some finite time, that the regress in the selfhood was not only staggeringly vast, but authentically infinite -- the mereological distinction between the two being of the utmost importance? There is nothing in the passage that could engender such a conviction; indeed, the latter portion suggests quite the opposite. On page 52, however, he says:

With indescribable rapidity, I passed through to the other side of the mirror and found myself waking to infinite wakefulness in my very center, in the center of the wakefulness which, itself, wasn't an object but an intemporal act I was able to perform. I knew that I knew all there was to be known, that I had attained the infinite value, touched the essence of the essence of all things and myself… I knew.

Confidence in actual verification of the infinite can increase a bit here, because of use of the word “intemporal” (thus removing the finite time constraint), though one must still wonder if “infinite” and “all” are being employed denotatively or connotatively. The “indescribable rapidity” is, however, disappointing. In non-instantaneous transitions between “time and eternity” it would appear possible to perceptually learn something about properties of operator-time, as, by descriptive phenomenology of cognitive overload in pilot fixation syndrome, for instance, there is ponderable relativistic time-slow-down near absolute limiting velocity in cognition of percepts, i.e., baud-rate of consciousness-state employed (just as Luneburg documented a limiting velocity for binocular visual space independent of the velocity of light). Concentration in meditation upon anavastha of the selfhood yields -- as Jourdain's “I couldn't possibly accept it” indicates -- a consciousness state in many respects similar to that of the pilot at cognitive overload. This can be systematically studied experimentally in flight simulators and/or biofeedback-equipped, holographic projection dome-enhanced, flotation-isolation tanks: each their own “gestalt bubbles”. Jourdain takes recourse to Proust's Remembrance of Things Past to explicate intemporality (p. 48-9): in contradistinction to Brentano's “time is in remembering”, Proustian remembrance is taken as dissolving temporality by holding all remembered Husserlian “units of consciousness” simultaneously present, such that (p. 49) “…one is contemporaneous with all the instants of life.” Leaving aside the issue that “all the instants” includes those of the future Proust did not address, or for that matter Brentano, use of “one”, of “I”, and of “myself” must also be questioned as to denotative and/or connotative, once other side of the mirror has been obtained: is it instants of one's life or of all life “one” is contemporaneous with, and if “all” by what means, how? If “the speakable” is inadequate here, what does that do to Husserl's transcendental reduction program on general properties of inference? And this question particularly arises in view of a statement made earlier in Jourdain's book (p. 38):

One cannot deny duality, since it is the principle of life. Certainly, a false duality that is the product of a given individual's mind should be destroyed. I repeat and insist: duality, to the extent that it is a duplicate of reality, a dreamlike and personally fabricated duality, must be ruthlessly destroyed. But when this veil, in the center of which we habitually evolve, is consumed, when this enormous subjective bubble bursts, what is then left? What will you see when you are outside the bubble? The world, plainly and simply. There is something! There is me and the tree. Duality exists.

But this cannot be the case, as it is too much an expression of the French predilection to pander to Descartes no matter what. What of Gebser's “concretion of time”? What of the Analytical Cubist object with its superposed “facets”? And Jourdain almost knows this “given dualism”, like Husserl's “given time”, cannot actually be the case, as the following statement indicates (p. 49):

When you become the hub [of the wheel of becoming], you no longer think in the usual pattern. No longer thinking in mental images, you can no longer name the things you see. You are situated in a layer of yourself that precedes the one capable of explaining, naming, classifying, expounding on them. Thus, these things are not necessarily recognizable.

The question arises as to whether the words “you” and “yourself” are here being used denotatively and/or connotatively. An aspect of Proust, as a master of percepts, Jourdain does not discuss, immediately comes to mind. Proust, in Remembrance, said: “…perhaps the immobility of things that surround us is forced upon them by our conviction that they are themselves, and not something else.” Raising the possibility of m-valued identity, if not m-logically-valued identity. Time and identity, not time and eternity.

What is the identity of Cantor dust? A dusti of numbers numbering motes, of course. Going dotty with Yayoi Kusama? Or do the numbers number the spaces-between? Musically, notes or intervals -- the question posed by Zuckerkandl? Or is the identity of Cantor dust the R. D. Laing's Divided Self “I/i's” of anavastha in the selfhood explicated by Jourdain? Or the spaces-between such “I's” (such identifications)? No use trying to stop identifying! But can one fall-between identifications? Fall into the plenum of Nibbana? Do numbers number “I's” or do “I's” personify numbers? Is number to be known in person, or in principle alone? Is this mere “psychologism”, as Frege would have it? Or is it the essence of monadology, as Leibniz would have it? Absent reification of inner objects, there could be no ponderable external object-world gestalt bubble. If reification is a fallacy, then by ₁T₂ logic alone is the objective world a fallacy: this is why anything that re-minds of the subject-(physical)object level of the transference -- say, the Wundtian program of cataloging introspective objects -- is swept under the rug by projective-identification (reduced to a mere “interaction” between observer-state and object-system in parlance of the quantum measurement problem). And what is Dedekind-cut to get a number? To get a space-between? The continuum, of course. Halve a length of line; halve the halves; halve the halved halves; halve the halved halved halves… unto Cantor dust. In Dedekind's view, the number is not the mote or the space-between, but the cut producing them both. Number as act, as actor, even! The cut its own cutter! Number as automorph unlacing the boots by decomposition, not bootstrapping by recursive generation. Not “Chew's Monadology”, a linear-time-evolution bootstrap concept; Leibniz's monadology, monads by atemporal involutory decomposition: the missing Leibniz Gödel fruitlessly sought in Leibniz (when he would have found it in the Lukasiewicz he resolutely, and pointedly, ignored while Poland was Panzered). Gödel's acting-out was a less graphic form of Nash's acting-out. But to truly “find” the “missing part” amongst monadic wholes, a quintessential problem in mereology, would involve brain-change and associated sub-clinical (e.g., endogenous ketamine flood) and clinical dynamics (extensive abreactions by “autogenic brain discharges”, with their orchestrated “autogenic neutralization” thematics, introjected and projected), dynamics which must be successfully hidden so as to prevent medical intervention and consequent permanent disability. Whom does the medical establishment serve? Certainly not the Grail. Just ask John Nash or Yayoi Kusama! Afraid of the dynamics of endogenous ketamine flood whenever they start? Then do something to prevent onset of the flood. You think bulimia arises by spontaneous generation? Fast (without psyllium husk and Bentonite and high colonics), for instance, so as to dump stored toxins from docking sites on cell membranes into the blood stream sufficient to quench (speaking electron-transport complexes, here, and gases of free-electron parcels), upon crossing the blood-brain barrier, the ramped-up endogenous ketamine synthesis: one type of “neutralization antagonizing forms of resistance”, twenty-six varieties of which were identified by Weimar-era Oskar Vogt (Neurologische Zentralstation, Berlin, Magdeburger Strasse 16), later by Autogenic Training founder, Schultz, later yet by Schultz's colleague, Wolfgang Luthe (as briefly chronicled in MOON, Vol. 2, pp. 267-70). Toxins as co-conspirators of endogenous glutamate flood! Don't believe it? Read the “tank logs” of John C. Lilly, M.D. What do you think Lilly was investigating, anyway? And why do you think he was so resolutely attacked? NewtonÛLeibniz. Boing! Boing! How many world wars over this wap-wap-wang? Homeopathy emerged out of Leibnizian perspectives. Leibniz's intemporal empirical positivism, and hence his understanding of “limits” in the calculus, was that of the bare object (monad: subjective and/or objective under ₁T₂ logic only), while Newton's linear-time-bound utilitarian empiricism, and hence his understanding of fluxion-calculus, was that of the “cooked” object (enculturated consensual simulacra: “objective” by collective unconscious processes of projective-identification and introjection). Why involutes? Because you (connotative) can never get there one step as small as you like at a time, and we (connotative, but not coercive) know there is a “there” there. How? By thousands of years of recorded history of radical empirical positivism at anavastha in the selfhood. No other measure is available. No surface-as-measure? Oh my God! Certainly not your God. And the very fact that there is no other available measure tells us a great deal about the relation of number to psyche. So, numbers and “I's” and spaces-between and the cuts producing them are built down from Aleph-1, not built up to Aleph-null (between which transfinite cardinalities, according to Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis, there is naught). No amount of building up in finite time will get zero to infinity, not ever; never: it did not take the Continuum Hypothesis and the Axiom of Choice to reach this understanding, only a tortoise and a hare. Cantor challenged Greek atomism; that's why Russell wrote On Logical Atomism (to debunk Cantor for debunking the simple-identity of the claimed “I am”). Is the Dedekind-cut its own cutter, or is there an “intelligent designer” wielding the knife? Absent a continuum to cut, there can be no intelligent designer. And if natural selection (of genetic cuts and snips) by evolution can be demonstrated, it is a non-existence proof for the notion of God: no wonder the notion of evolution over a passive passing linear-time has elicited so much animus: legislating non-existence or existence of God and enforcing this law with a thin blue line! Secular prescription or sacred prescription: pick your poison (it's all enculturated glutamate flood and resultant cutting away of neural networks to me!). To be by personification, or not to be by disidentification? That is the question! W. V. O. Quine's Word and Object is not the word and not the object. No possibility of bare perception? Who, then, the actual “cosmic exile”? The change of mind -- the metanoia, what Plato, in Timaeus, called a “reversal of intellectual vision”, there also being “inverted” and “oblique” intellectual visions, vision mind you (see: Robert Brumbaugh, Plato's Mathematical Imagination, Indiana U. Press, 1954) -- which Jourdain indicates by the term “radical awakening”, involves an “autogenic shift” in actual sensory seeing where Proust's “things” are apprehended as non-selfsame, without object-constancy (except as ye againe become as little children), mobile (animistic), and as being built down from the continuum by intemporal involutory decomposition, rather than apprehended as constant, immobile, selfsame, and built up from units by recursive extension in passive passing linear-time. And this dualism behind the “given dualism” is itself “sacrificed” (real meaning of sacred sacrifice: challenge an axiom) as a premise when one (connotative) steps off ₁T₂ logic into the abyss of infinite-valued Lukasiewicz's logics -- which, again, by the same principle, must be understood as built down, not up, for no building up can actually get from point A to point B, let alone get “there”, while the meta-dualism behind “this dualism” which is behind the “given dualism”… is simply the anavastha-nature of the case, not an absolute logical fallacy (of which there can be none), only a fallacy under one or another order of logical-value. The fact we (connotative, but not coercive) actually get from point A to point B empirically demonstrates that the numbers numbering the steps taken as small as we like are built down, not up. Understanding is unbroken, even if knowledge is fragmented.

No. I do not wish to go into colon hydrotherapy and detox herbs here, if only because that is far from my specialty. Yes, it is correct that I was fasting (without adequate knowledge) for periods of up to nine days in the years immediately back from the Viet Nam war. Dr. Jarvis and the bookshelf at the only health-food store in Falls Church, Virginia during the late-'60s and early-'70s were partially informing. I will state, however, that in my non-professional judgment, Autogenic Therapy, detox therapy, and homeopathic therapy represent different aspects of the same treatment modality in the same medical model: the mechanisms of action are synergistically interfused. Much of this was well known by Gödel's time, and elaborately practiced not so far from Princeton where he assiduously fasted: so integral a part of Hutter-liana of south-central Pennsylvania, that in my grandmother's house -- as I learned over and over as a child -- the enema was first line of defense against any illness or even bad temper, and huge oak barrels of apple cider vinegar rested in the stone basement alongside case after case of buckwheat honey. Dr. Jarvis would have been pleased. Meditate and/or fast all you like, and so long as toxin dump into the bloodstream quenches endogenous ketamine flood, that The Flood which is an antidote to glutamaturgic neuronal etching… Well? I recommend here, not the perspectives outlined, but the information contained in, two books: Zen and the Brain (James H. Austin, M.D., MIT Press, 1998) and Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self (Allan N. Schore, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994).

What do you mean, “No big deal!”? Of course it is; it's terrifying. Nothing frightened Pascal, according to his own testimony, more than the silence of infinite space. Dread of actual entry upon anavastha informs the whole of modern psychiatry, its purgative definitions of mental illness, its indenture to the state: the deep space in-here is far more disorienting than spaces out-there. The function of abstraction is to get the ego out of the inner space generative empathy puts it in. Fear of anavastha projected onto nature becomes the will to kill animism. Following, is an interesting passage -- possibly the only such passage -- from, appropriately enough, Whirlwind by James Clavell (Avon paperback, 1986, p. 755):

…the silence came at them like a physical presence, the sun bore down, and the space enveloped them.

The night was blue-black, stars enormous… and even greater silence, greater space, so much space inconceivable. “I hate it, Andy,” Maureen had whispered. “It frightens me to death.”

“Me too. Don't know why but it does.” Around the palm trees of the oasis, the desert went to every horizon, taunting and unearthly. “The immensity seems to suck the life out of you. Imagine what it's like in summer!”

She trembled. “It makes me feel less than a grain of sand. It's crushing me -- somehow it's taken my balance away.”

And anavastha, though it deeply challenges the egoic focus, challenges it less than does authentic experience of identity transparency, of which anavastha is only one component.

How can entry actually, in real lived experience, be made upon anavastha without abandonment of the notion of intentionality, whereupon a something is always represented by a something even such that contentlessness is “itself” regarded content (the ascription of itself-ness, itself, being a “regarding” -- which is a reification). The real hypostatization which the unreal fallacy of misplaced concreteness attempts to conceal: simple-identity ascribed to non-simple identity. Hypostasis: the substance or essence of an individual, which, according to Platonism, precedes existence, and, according to Existentialism, is preceded by existence. In which logical and ontological “direction” reification lies, therefore, depends upon whether the Platonic or the Existential assumption is embraced. The curious thing about Husserl's thought is that he tacitly attempts to move in both directions simultaneously without explicitly challenging the notions “precedes” and “simple identity” necessary if such simultaneous motion in both “directions” is to be permitted. This was an element of the central thesis of my freshman paper entitled “The Predicament of Existentialism”. For Platonic Husserl, meaning and proposition exist independent of functional modality, intentional content, and the “intendors” intending them. For Existential Husserl, existence of intendors with simple-identity and selfsameness is tacit assumption under dictates of ₁T₂-logic definition of “nominal act” (acts presuppose actors and action-based sociologies). Meaning of the signified is nominally present in the signifier: the -ness property of class inclusion is referent ascribed to the signified. Such ascription is nominal act. Non-simple identity is extra-nominal (not sub-nominal, i.e., not sub-sub-propositional) and thus unspeakable in speakable-word-type languages. The “pregeometry” of physicist John A. Wheeler, thus, cannot be a calculus of propositions, although it may be a logical calculus that is not propositional. But, then again, the notion “pregeometry”, itself, is in the very same “predicament”, given that pregeometry is posited without explicitly challenging the notions of logical and ontological (let alone temporal) precedence relations. Physics nominally adheres to a nominalist Existentialism, while postulation of the pre- in pregeometry invokes a Platonist nomen nudum -- so long as “precedes” is taken as given (particularly if as Husserlian “given time” in, say, big-bang cosmology) and not “derived”. ((MOON offers an example of such a “derivation”: Consciousness in its active aspect is the set of all topological operators on the m-logically-valued n-dimensional referencing function space; consciousness in its passive aspect is the reference space acted upon. This is pure, universal consciousness, which is unconscious to any and every class of intendors. It can also be noted that this “derivation” is in the form of Gödel's proof and could be stated symbolically and compacted to numbered Gödel numbers. When, in 1977 -- heyday of “pregeometry as calculus of propositions”, not to mention “pregeometry as a bucket of dust, a Borel set”, i.e., the kami dust driving Yayoi Kusama dotty -- a facsimile of this was presented to J. A. Wheeler, he was quintessentially polite, and exceptionally dismissive.)) There is no counseling here recourse to the hypergeometric (though possibly to a hypercomplex restatement of the complex Riemann zeta function restatement of the real Euler zeta function): the hypergeometric distribution, for instance, is a form of probability function, and challenge to the notion “precedes” does not by any means necessarily imply probability amplitude as the only alternative means of ascertaining what meanings meaning means. If and only if, LOGIC - logic = pure grammar, does presence of higher orders of logical-value force this interpretation. Propositional and nominal (sub-propositional) Husserlian units of consciousness are not a compaction of the _µT_m meanings that meaning means, but a collapse thereof to the ₁T₂ order only: superposed wave-effect quantum chemistry of the brain not contained by the brain collapsed to the brain contained by the statistical thermodynamics of molecular biology under a “classical limit” necessary to approximation to solutions in fluxion-calculus. Leaving pure LOGIC of sense-vs.-nonsense alone, as regards the impure logic of sense and only sense, (formal-logical) nomology becomes equivalent to study of the law of propositional non-contradiction (e.g., I am me and only me, not also you) and nominal non-contradiction (i.e., the physicists' nominalism of the general material a priori truth: blue is blue and only blue, not simultaneously also yellow). In On the Spiritual in Art, Kandinsky attempted to carry this principle of nominal non-contradiction into a pregeometry by enunciating painterly rules such as: a square is, and can only be, blue and only blue; a triangle, yellow and only yellow. These were attempts to formulate speakable propositions about painterly nominals Kandinsky knew to be numinous and unspeakable in speakable-word-type languages. Which is to say: for the lack of an adequate medium (i.e., exteriorized _µT_m Musculpt manifold), he was forced to formulate non-propositionalizable propositions. His book was written before the first purely non-objective painting was painted in an attempt to justify abandonment of the rules of signification prevailing in post-Renaissance naturalism. It was written as gestalt psychology was coming into its own, at the very time Husserl was developing his notions of the “profiles” and “horizons” -- ideal Platonic matters, not those Existential -- of the ponderable macroscopic object. Kandinsky sensed that a pregeometry was necessary if what could be designated a Kris-like artistic “regression in service to the ego” was to be avoided, a prognosis that proved to be prescient, even if the promulgated painterly rules were inadequate. Schoenberg, of course, was doing the same in art music composition, and the two were sharing their findings: the Grundgestalt being a musical embodiment of Kandinskian painterly rules. At the very same time, Marcel Duchamp challenged utility altogether of the role of rules (not only with the urinal, not only later with the bride and her large glass, but also earlier with the descending nude: prefiguring superposed “concretion of time” time-shapes -- of Husserlian profiles and horizons, of the much later von Hayek “total capital stock”). A decade after these Kandinsky-Schoenberg innovations-prefigurations, Gödel produced a nomological version of Schoenberg's basic-shape of the serial formation: the composite Gödel number. Regressed in some quarters to an obsession with “total control”: in this case politics prefiguring art (total control in art music composition was a postwar phenomenon). Political total control being compensatory abreaction (via processes of projective-identification) for total loss of psychological control, a control normotically resident in lack of challenge to the claim to simple-identity and selfsameness (hence absence of anavastha), this total loss having been occasioned by the march of discovery brought on by assimilation of perspectives described in “The Great Books of the East” series translated into European languages. There were back-reactions all along the way, of course, World War Two being a rather massive focal seizure.

But Brentano “intentionality” is just another word for logical bivalence -- if there must, by intentionality, be content, and that content uniquely determines (as singularity: simple-identity, selfsameness) the noematic nucleus, the sense-as-object, of the involved unit of consciousness expressed as sub-proposition and proposition. The only units of consciousness, according to Husserliana, not representing something uniquely as something are those units which are non-intentional, such as pain. If, as Husserl insists, simultaneous multiple instantiation (Abfall, atemporal decomposition by mathematical involutes) is disallowed (doesn't occur in actuality, Platonic and Existential), then the logic of pain and the like is the only non-bivalent logic. And the logics of contentless awareness -- not this, not that pure consciousness, nitti-nitti; Kandinsky pure feeling stripped of all concrete contents -- are altogether neglected. Husserl's notion of the “horizons” of an object not only was an essay against Analytical Cubism, but prefigured dissimulation of Schrödinger's wave-function by lending tacit support to the mistaken probability amplitude interpretation. By synchronicity, Duchamp in New York City placed the urinal in the Armory Show just as the first increment of Husserl's Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology was printed in the Göttingen journal Husserl edited. In Analytical Cubism the horizons of an object are simultaneously presented as actual, and Gebser rightly recognized this simultaneity as a Special Relativity “concretion of time” (experimentally verified in the optics lab by Luneburg). Husserl, several years after Analytical Cubism, maintained that the horizons are “possibilities” only (in regards to identity of the object) over linear-time, the “given time” he was later to essay in the preface to his book on internal time consciousness. Husserl never practiced his practice! And he developed an Existentialist's take (existence precedes essence) on what Julian Barbour calls “Platonia” (essence precedes existence). Husserl never sorted out this “precedes” (essayed in my freshman paper: “The Predicament of Existentialism”), and this is illustrated by his distinction between “general meaning” and “respective meaning” of Platonic ideals. The horizons, according to Husserl, are not simultaneously given actualities, but possibilities over time, a time beyond question. Horizons in atemporal Platonia existing only over given linear-time? No practitioner would formulate such a proposition. Husserl never practiced his practice! Husserl's essay on “given time” was written at the same given time Born interpreted the superposed (i.e., simultaneously given in time-independent wave equation) branches of Schrödinger's wave-function for a quantum object as probability amplitudes of the possibilities in regards to the identity of the object in question. These branches are mathematical representations of horizons -- and Schrödinger, as widely read as he was, and engaged in the yogic practices that he was, could not have not been aware of that in some fashion when he wrote his equation. Dirac, functioning under Born's interpretation, rewrote Schrödinger's equation as time-dependent, dependent on Husserl's unquestionable given linear-time-only. Had Husserl practiced his practice, he would have seen, along with practitioners of Analytical Cubism, or at least Alfred Jarry, that horizons are simultaneously given actualities (with m-logically-valued identity transparency, not bivalent identity) and that there are no objects that are not quantum objects -- the explanation for this being that Planck's constant (and all other universal physical constants) are not only fields, not only m-valued, but are m-logically-valued (as practitioners -- hopefully actual practitioners -- of M Theory are presently beginning to theoretically “see”, but remain far from physiologically seeing). The case is far, far more “quantum” than quantum mechanics ever was or ever can become. Though Husserl's reductive phenomenology is consonant with a gestalt approach -- were it actually practiced, and were it not merely a body of thought about what such practice must be -- and exactly what was needed to consciously integrate m-logically-valued quantum-relativistic modes of animistic comprehension, as actually promulgated it became a spoiling operation which helped quench the insight being developed by the avant-garde. Two world wars were immediate results of this quenching. Still, all these years later, and virtually no insight has developed. Simple-minded stuff complexified to the academic standard of dissimulation by dictates of the academic mode of production: life as a parking garage. Dead species walking.

I see no reason to believe, on basis of the quantum measurement principle of observer-state object-system “interaction” -- fundamental constants in the M Theory-yet-to-come being m-valued and also m-logically-valued -- in a priori Husserlian material “essential laws” or the derivative insistence upon simple-identity. The superposed farmer-buffalo-cicada are<<>>is (<<>> indicating involutory decomposition and spontaneous fusion, by complex-imaginary operator-time, of the involved wave-function) the same non-simple identity, and any switching-between is in semantics of pure grammar. In the most general sense, all apparent (from perspective of ₁T₂ logic only) inconsistent meanings are matters of logical form, such matters reducing to the nominal moments of matter of the given proposition having ordinal and cardinal differentials in the µ and m components of its _µT_m map (µ indicating ordinality; m indicating cardinality). Factors of the numbered Gödel number of the given proposition are that proposition's nominal moments of matter, its Russellian order-type being indicated in both ordinal and cardinal indexicality. Operation of a Luneburg limit on velocity of seeing in binocular visual space is directly related not only to the baud-rate of consciousness defining a given observer-state, but is one parameter determining the Luneburg psychometric distance function operative in a given case of observer-state object-system interaction. The best place to study all this -- as well as other aspects of Musculpt -- is in a computerized, biofeedback-equipped, Lilly tank with holographic projection dome.

Well… Schrödinger, I would say, was practicing with his two teenaged-sister paramours TankTantra without a Lilly tank when he wrote his famous wave equation: with a properly-equipped Lilly tank, quantum physics for beginners. Autogenic abreaction in the Tank. The best way to see what is involved in this is via HusserLiana. Respective meaning is context dependent and therefore cannot be an Ideal -- cannot be Ideal under the lowest ₁T₂ order of logical-value in syllogistic march over linear-time. However, multiple instantiation of a nominal Ideal meaning to differing self-referential propositional contexts under nonlinear complex-imaginary operator-time by m-logically-valued involutory decomposition of the factors of numbered Gödel numbers to the lowest ₁T₂ order of logical-value in syllogistic march over linear-time is the mechanism of quantum action expressing as animistic identity transparency: iff I am here now can there be an ontic “I” and a “here” and a “now” disidentified from its many doppelgangers. Which “I”, which “here”, which “now”? Nonlocal identity transparency -- as directly experienced -- is animistically place-specific collective intelligence: Butor's le génie du lieu. A violation of Husserl's nomological mereology. Sort of like: first we learned that, statistically speaking, My God! virtually everything causes cancer; and now we are learning that, statistically speaking, Wow! virtually everything prevents cancer. In the most general case, as Derek emphasizes in a mirror for the MOON, there is only one Ideal non-simple Real-I and its many, many doppelgangers: the One-and-only-Woman who is She-who-must-be-believed and who can only be seen in a mirror for the MOON. Tantric practices all involve employment of active imagination to eidetically reduce the moment of quality in the coital proposition to its Ideal moments of matter: each Liana is EveryLiana, iff she is remembering herself, iff she is effectively engaging in Platonic anamnesis. The enculturated Brentano intentionality has to be stripped away by her bachelors, deautomatized, which involves changes in the nonlocal quantum chemistry of functions of long-range phase-coherent brains (what Joseph Chilton Pearce regards an internal procedure for opening The Crack in the Cosmic Egg: no mere fabulation or metafiction, but definitely an existential solecism). So, one starts in the womb's cognitive Tank with induced-deduced concrete meanings (etched glutamaturically) attributed by the intentionalites of enculturation and strips them bare (with endogenous ketamine flood of glutamate antidote), class by class by class via the method of free-association or free-variation upon noemata or nuclear-meanings pre-meta-programmed into the human biocomputer. We have here, obviously, inner counterwork as ingenetic process: re-resonating with DNA's p-electron parcel riffs in acoustically-modified gravity-wave mode. Reentering the womb of the Lilly tank, The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even as she Platonically remembers Musculpt manifold (sheet after sheet of Kusama quantum dots) in biofeedback with the melon-dome analogue of the dolphin's sonic-visioning system for speaking universal grammar of the cosmic code arrayed over Sakharov-Novikov dust in collapse-anticollapse sheets. In the realms of sound, this was John Cage's whole approach to music composition: sound devices by which to re-duce induction and deduction of learned-imposed meanings. If, in walking past a construction site during a stretch of walking meditation, you hear hammers and saws, rather than pure patterns in sound, you are not remembering bare-hearing, you have not walked your ear class by class by class out of linear-time bound acoustic registration. Dehabituation by practice, practice, practice is cleansing the doors of perception. Then what? What, once you have heard a bare sound? Intemporally up the class by class by class order-type ladder to general cases of general cases. Same with sight, taste, touch, tingle, taunt… peehew! Self in fetish object, fetish object in self -- by projective identification. When the fetish which is self-as-object, object-as-self is commoditized -- which is the only way these days people, independent of warfare, seem to be able to have intercourse with m-logically-valued states of identity -- defetishization of Brentano intentionality must precede processes of eidetic reduction. Sisyphean pertinacious must be the soror mystica mysterious sweostor, suster, systir: practice, practice, practice -- how delicious! -- but even reaching consensus on the project to abstract the empathy in the coital proposition is virtually unobtainable in the prevailing cultural context… and respective meaning being context dependent… well? For differing accounts of what happens when this is psycho-socio-centrically regressed due to exercise of the various forms of suppression available see: Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch (Automedia, 2004) and Susan Greenwood's The Nature of Magic, An Anthropology of Consciousness (Berg, 2005). I mean… these days-after-Schrödinger actual hands-on quantum physics has been made a criminal offense! And you think the human species is somehow going to solve its cheap energy problem and survive what it has brought down upon itself?

My particular way of doing walking meditation evolved as it did by “a decisive act of the will” (or so the egoic focus would characterize it): absolutely stop thinking about reductive phenomenology; just do it. Another of those major life decisions I attributed to myself by arrogation -- as a claim to having the ontological status requisite to accomplishing the actual making of a major life decison. “Bracket” not only your existence assumptions but your attention cathexes: fuzz-out any cathexis you can find; that way, even those assumptions you can't clarify, can't operate effectively -- and you might just suddenly, if momentarily, slip out of all classes of “respectivity”. How else actually find the “residuum” of an actually existing Ideal? Never was very respectful. Circa early autumn, 1965. Cold turkey on the Big H. I never read Husserl again (which would have greatly pleased my college roommates, had they later learned of it: I filled the hallway with paste-up artifacts of eidetic reductions and the resultant Merz-haus was threatening to take over the shared house, placing it on a cognitive slant). From studying J. G. Bennett on “diversely identical skew-cubes” and “pencils of skew-parallels”, I knew that multi-identity, voluntary dissociation, “Plexiglas walls”, derealizing schizoid tunnel vision, psychogenic physical anesthesia, and the like were related to uncanny presence of the diversely-identical, and that skew-parallels were involved with Husserlian “profiles” and pencils of skew-parallels with Husserlian “horizons”. How involved? But, at that time I was not interested in the mathematical niceties. I wanted direct perception before looking at the mathematics of it, as I didn't want the math to tell me what to perceive. Moreover, there was a Viet Nam war interlude to this aspect of inner work. I took an early-out from the Army to get right back into it by enrolling in photo studies (entry into direct apprehension of profiles -- stills and stoppages -- and horizons -- time-lapses, overprints, and moving pictures) at Long Beach State, but by the time I got there all the photo courses were closed. I was impatient, chaffing at the bit, so switched coasts again, got jobs working with my hands, and soon enrolled in studio art and music appreciation and composition courses. I was learning from Piaget that the child learns “object constancy” largely by monkey motions, physical exercise, muscle movement (habituating and automatizing what Edmund Jacobson called “residual tension patterns”) even before roof-brain chatter talks his/her world into object constitution upon the hyletic data (those Kusama quantum-dot sheets, “warm-golden dust of Supermind” -- Lal Ded dots: “…the unobstructed sound, the nothing without name, or lineage, or form which is continually changing into the Sound and the Dot… That meditating inside That, the Sound and the Dot” [Lalla: Naked Song, Coleman Barks, trans., Maypop, p. 46, 1992 translation of the Lalla-Vakyana poems written by 14th century Kashmiri yogini Mai Lal Diddi who danced naked whilst singing her metaphysical poetry and wandering the Himalayas well into her seventies] a Borel set): roof-brain chatter being the subjective spin-off of the associative cuing resident in the automatized residual tension patterns primarily of the extra-ocular and laryngeal muscles. So, I tried to re-create the childhood circumstance and walk it back to the womb, which I learned, from people like Joseph Bridger, was likely simulated by fractal image generation at autogenic abreaction in the Lilly tank (a kind of rebirthing flight simulator not wholly unrelated to the ones I'd been exposed to at AFSC-AFLC, Wright-Patterson, AFB, my last year of high school: my father was involved in administering such research at Air Force Systems Command-Air Force Logistics Command). But simulators cost money and I had none, so I simulated having a simulator: walking meditation (as one form of autosensory and autocognitive observation, another being reading only to practice remembering to observe the reader reading, not to actually read [“bracketing” reading in the actual act of reading, not actual reading, as fuzz-out of attention cathexes] even though in years of such “reading”, and never becoming so good at it, some of the content of the reading material was retained, indicating how poorly I had done, unless…).

Unless… Husserl's “intentional horizon” is a profile of that which is not at all intentional according to Kandinsky's “pure feeling”. Not thinking in words or images (sequential or stacked by superimpositions) but by “controlled” feeling-tones (sequential or stacked by superimpositions). Pure-feeling: Goode “looking through” a “stack” of such feeling-toned “thought” on the Pereira “layered transparent” stripped, like the Bride by her Bachelors, even, of all concrete contents: transcendental formal logic of the infinite. And why not? What else could an intention be if not a profile of a horizon? Even if Einstein's absolute limiting velocity is only m-valued -- not also m-logically-valued -- profiles and horizons are relative (to the transfinite step function over the hierarchies of multiples of c, c', and c''). And this is intimately involved with Rudolf K. Luneburg's “psychometric distance functions” of binocular visual space -- not only with skew-parallels and their pencils. Bracket not only the object, but the singularity of the object, its selfsameness, its being-itself-and-only-itself. Why assume that if the dog goes in, the cat must come out? Why posit duck or rabbit, not duckrabbit or rabbitduck? I mean, genetic engineering is exploring this challenge to the ₁T₂-logic “law of non-contradiction” by regressed projective identification: pigtomato, fishcarrot, and so on. Suppress to regress the projection identified with. Etiology of cognitive dyscrasia. Husserl assumed -- it's only logical! -- that you cannot see more than one profile at a given time. This self-evident proposition assumes “essential law” in regards to space, time, and identity, where, actually, essential laws of materiality may not exist. Materialism, dialectical or capitalist, may be derivative. We now have multiple experimental confirmation that molecules -- not only atoms and elementary particles -- can be at more than one place at a time. For molecules, atoms and elementary particles, at least, we now know profiles and horizons on hyletic data must be relative: non-simple identities can “see” more than one profile at a time, either/and by being in different times at the same time (Gebser's “concretion of time”), different spaces in the same space, different times in the same space, different spaces at the same time. What does that do to isotropy of space and continuity of time? M Theory has the fundamental constants being “fields”; soon they will become m-valued fields, then m-logically-valued m-valued fields (do this to c, c', and c'' and see what logically and topologically comes out of absolute limiting velocities, accelerations, and time-rates of change of accelerations -- and their relative-states). Accelerations in expansion of a universe birthing multiverses is mere child's play. Profiles and horizons are relative -- relative to the relative-states of the multiple values and m-logical values of their identity parameters. This is available in immediate apprehension, iff one volunteers for voluntary dissociation into a non-simple identity. Veridical, not illusory. Even m-valued -- not to mention m-logically-valued -- violates HusserLiana. Not local epoché: first person singular. Non-local epoché: first person plural (collective occasion of experience). Bracket not only existence assumptions, but identity assumptions. If the general Husserlian meaning function is found in the intentional Husserlian horizon, then the respective contents are to be found in the one-sidedly apprehended profiles: spatio-temporal adumbrations, spatial times, temporal places. What about the “event horizon”? Is that the horizon of an intentional Husserlian horizon? It would seem so, because Husserl would have us project over linear-time (as a “given” time) the future possible (perfect tense, regular and irregular) apprehensions to their summed resultant designated a horizon we can never consciously apprehend, only inferentially construe as a “must” of the unconscious prerequisites to “object constancy”. But if object “constitution” over hyletic data is, as explicitly stated by Husserl, according to “essential laws” of formal logic and “natural laws” of materiality, then this intentional horizon must be a one-sidely inferred profile of the event horizon where linear-time stops and matter (and material law) cannot escape its collapse back into the hyletic data (Kusama dots) from which it emerged as a constituted material object in linear-time. A Husserlian general meaning function can be stated as a Gödel number, with nominal respective contents being ₁T₂-logic type factors of a Gödel number. An intentional horizon as a one-sidedly inferred profile of an event horizon where linear-time stops is a nominal respective content of finite logical-value order _µT_m, the second-order general meaning function of which can be stated as a numbered Gödel number demerged by nonlinear complex-imaginary operator-time from the third-order general meaning function of transfinite logical-value order _µT_m: base state of Tzog-chen.

Quoting myself, from above:

The function of abstraction is to get the ego out of the inner space generative empathy puts it in. Fear of anavastha projected onto nature becomes the will to kill animism.

Now quoting Picasso, as quoted in The Economist (“Africa's magic that transformed modern art”, February 11, 2006, p. 81):

It [painting] is not an aesthetic process; it's a form of magic that interposes itself between us and the hostile universe, a means of seizing power by imposing a form on our terrors as well as on our desires.

Kill! Kill! Kill! Kill animism. “Hostile”. “Seizing”. “Power”. “Imposing”. “Terrors”. “Desires”. Art as murder, rape, voodoo, magic. Art as propitiation of the unintegrated inner object in projective identification as feared hostile -- hostile “other”, hostile nature, hostile universe. Art as mutilation: introjecting the vanquished “other” through incorporation of artifacts seized from those subjected to genocide and enslavement. A painting as surrogate ear, nose, nipple, dong. Kill bill. Decapitation startle lying on the garret floor. Collecting purgative signifiers of the horror, the horror of the dark continent of the collective unconscious, of the heart of darkness in apocalypse now, the ego vanquished to the great nihility: masks of the Shadow figure placed over the faces of she-who-must-be-believed, the suppressed and regressed Anima in her incarnations styled as whores, as “Les Demoiselles d'Avignon”. Picasso's women. The whores that must be beaten if they are to be kept at bay (on the backside of this page of this issue of The Economist is an obituary of Betty Friedan who hid her black eyes under a mask of make-up: this publisher's paste-up is purely happenstance, of course, not unconsciously mediated synchronicity). When infrapsychology of the person becomes mass psychology of a civilization, can there be any doubt holocaust is soon to follow? And when the civilization recycles the infrapsychology from generation to generation, can there be any doubt species suicide is in the birth canal?

“Military civilians” is now a pedestrian term employed in the literature of low-intensity warfare. Not only does the reality encompassed by this usage -- both its explicit technical denotation and its implicit connotations -- make mincemeat out of the legal prescriptions embodied in the pre-WWI Hague Convention and the post-WWII Geneva Conventions, the term is a descriptor indicating how omnipresent the underlying infrapsychological processes of projective identification have become. According to Picasso's notion of art, a painter would be a type of military civilian. Consideration of this proposition provides the opportunity to garner some insight into why and how genocidal holocaust began its march toward fulmination in the 21st century just as Gertrude Stein's famous exhortation “Kill the 19th century dead!” was being effectuated. The 1951 UN Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide essentially proscribes the notion of collective guilt and hence collective punishment, which we have been given to understand once was a hallmark of all tribal groups: avenge the dead of one's own tribe by annihilating, not only the few individual perpetrators, but the whole transgressor tribe. “Akha Jim” -- Jim Goodman -- as usual, contextualizes the major issue involved: “Dance of the Holy Mothers, An ancient cult in Vietnam's Red River delta comes to life each year with rituals to appease the guardian spirits” (The Nation, Bangkok, February 25, 2006). The class of Holy Mothers is a subset of the collection of guardian spirits, a group of tribalistic, Taoistic, Chamistic fertility goddesses, assimilated to Buddhism, first serviced during the upheavals accompanying the dynastic wars of 16th century Vietnam. Ewig-Weildiche: the eternal feminine in doppelganger, not drag, no mere hinny hybrid between a stallion and a she-ass. A spirit medium engages in len dong -- trance induction -- so as to perform hau bong -- attending to the Shadow or incarnating the spirit. Taking a reading on the collective need by trance mediumship, as depicted, for instance, in Julie Dash's film Daughters of the Dust: mediating split-off autonomous complexes of the collective unconscious personified as shadow spirits of one sort or another. Any member of the corpus could be a shamaness-or-shaman-for-a-day. The purest form of governance, no intermediaries -- until specialization and role stratification set in. A practice which deteriorated over the centuries to a mere reading of individual needs by a mediumistic answering of questions posed, by living individuals about departed individuals, to the Shadow. As Akha Jim points out, this “…is nowadays more popular then ever before”, yet “It's not a real trance, but a simulated one…” This dissimulation by simulacra is not incidental; it is an essential aspect of the involved collective psychology: Similia/Dissimilia (Rainer Crone, editor, Rizzoli, 1988) -- and its consequences. In 1993, my Vietnamese folklorist wife and I attended a long-day's hau bong in a village on the outskirts of Saigon. All local attendees clearly were believers, but it would be hard to argue that any of them missed the fact that the “trance medium” never actually entered a trance state. And the simulation was very weak, exemplified by the fact that voice alteration was not even attempted as each new spirit “entered” the “medium”. Moreover, the “medium” changed costumes before each new spirit “entered”, indicating prior awareness as to which spirit would be “entering”. Simulacra. One possible explanation is that both the “medium” and the attendees knew or believed that the state would not tolerate practice of authentic public trance mediumship in cult groups, as this would be viewed as easily escalating into a threat like Falun Gong has become regarded by the Chinese state, and groups like Ma-hikari (ma meaning “sacred space”; hikari meaning “light”: Light of Sacred Space: which m-light, which m-value, uh, ma-value of the absolute limiting velocity of light, eh what?) are, to the Japanese state, suspect. True or not, this could only be a partial explanation. Times have changed and with them len dong and hau bong. My wife attended her first hau bong at age eight in a village on the outskirts of Hue in 1948. She has vivid memories of this, for all the attendee children were terrified by the len dong ritual then on display. There was no changing of clothes. No special clothes, just the average garb of the field laborer. But the medium went vociferously into trance, and was inhabited by shadow spirit after shadow spirit, the voice, gesticulations, posturing, body language of each entity being unique and forceful, assaulting apperceptions of those in attendance with certain awareness of otherworldly power, as do all authentic manifestations of the collective unconscious. Twip-twip-wuuurrrrip: the inner sounds and ethereal smells of abreacting neural nets recovering from habituated acts of quantum measurement and coming into long-range phase correlation (spontaneous fusion) across multiple discrete brains (permitted, and in no violation of the laws of biophysics, once Planck's “constant”, “minimum” time, and “minimum” distance are understood -- as the M Theory of superstring theory is converging upon -- to be m-valued, with more “amazing stuff” being permitted when these “constants” are recognized to be m-valued under m-valued logics, not just m-valued under bivalent logic: m-valued “constants” are not “variables”, as all the m-values are always simultaneously the “constant” case all ways). No “spooky pictures” of “The Perfect Medium”: the MET's recent exhibition reviewed by Luc Santos as hoax production which people become psychologically dependent upon (“Summoning the Spirits”, The New York Review of Books, February 23, 2006). The only “perfect medium” is unadulterated inner Musculpt. Full moon of hoa binh (peace) before monsoon. Cool night on the Perfume River, perfume of… just ask the local medium. Even though there was abdication and August Revolution in 1945, it was not until after 1975 that the people of Hue and environs -- who wore mourning shrouds in 1968 -- were resolutely inducted into institutionalization of Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm.

Suppress the medium's ability to take a trance reading on the collective need and what is likely to happen? Robert Fisk offers examples (from the Islamic fundamentalist 1990s, not the mid-50's French colonial war period) in his chapter on Algeria, “Anything to Wipe Out a Devil [i.e., the Shadow]…” (The Great War for Civilization, Knopf, 2005). Think about projective identification in recognizing the Shadow in the Devil by conversion (i.e., psychological retrograde-inversion) of personification as “Great God”, “Sole Truth”, “One Sacred Text”. Suppress and regress in order to split-off by projective identification an autonomous complex of the collective unconscious. This is an impersonal, collective psychological process, not one personal and individual -- though individuals, some of whom may be persons, are used by the collective unconscious in the process. Fisk observes (p. 555) that “When terrible reports came in from the Algerian countryside in November 1994 -- of two young women whose throats were cut because they refused to engage in 'pleasure marriages' with Muslim fighters -- there were many outside Algeria who refused to believe it.” He goes on to say (p. 565) about a school teacher whose throat was cut by GIA gunmen: “The newspaper El Watan concluded that Fatima's crime had been her beauty.” Reporting another incident of the period, Fisk says (p. 566) “A newly married couple are 'executed' in their home, the husband on the bed, the woman in the doorway of their bedroom, after reportedly -- and inexplicably -- being ordered to lay out her wedding trousseau. Their tiny baby is left tied up in the same room.” In speaking with a mediator of the talks for unification of the GIA and the FIS, Fisk says (p. 568) “His words were ruthless and absolute. When I asked him why the Muslim groups cut the throats of their enemies, he replied: 'It's the best way to become closer to God… You can do anything to wipe out a devil.'” Consider that the vesica pisces -- the two-pointed oval formed by two intersecting compass-drawn arcs -- in the gematria used to encode the Sermon on the Mount (encode as dots, lines, arcs, and networks thereof) is a symbol for the boat in which the Fisher of Men traveled upon the waters of the collective unconscious, that it also represents the Christian fish (eaten by the Whale) symbol, as well as the female genital “slit” identified with Mary Magdalene out of whom Christ cast evil spirits. Cut-throat trout. In The Fertile Crescent Religion, and its three split-off complexes, ritual sacrifice, “…the best way to become closer to God”, is preservation of the fish, salting it, which requires that it first be gutted and opened into the shape of a genital vesica. This is required “…to wipe out a devil”, the Shadow figure. The “crime” of beauty is to represent, and remind of, the suppressed intrapsychic contrasexual imago, the Anima who stands in the doorway to higher states of consciousness (Paradise, with its seventy-two pure, virginal qualities of being) holding the child, who represents those higher states which, in Paradise, can never be withheld. Execution in the bedroom is a reenactment of the failure of alchemical wedding between the intrapsychic contrasexual components of the collective psyche -- personified as Anima and Animus -- fraught with unconscious transference symbolism: Animus dead on the bed, Anima dead in the doorway, the Divine child tied up and left behind. A far better “medium” for taking a “trance” reading on the collective need is exteriorized inner Musculpt and its institutionalization, for instance, as m-logically-valued monetary units. Accomplishment of this, of course, would require that the collective properties of human identity, cognition, and responsibility cease being suppressed.

Nothing has damaged human brain more than religion, and nothing has damaged the natural environment more than science; I therefore entertain considerable antipathy to art in service to religion or science. My preference, like that of Kandinsky, is religion and science in service to art.

Yes, I know. “Good artists copy, great ones steal”; the famous statement supposedly made by Picasso. Actually, I hear this statement as a measure of Picasso's art, particularly post-WWI. No less than of post-WWI Stravinsky. Had either actually been “in” his prewar production, he could not possibly have followed his postwar path. Particularly Picasso -- for stacked chords do not measure up to superposition as analogical evocation of what Gebser called “concretion of time”. That's why I say it had to be someone like Alfred Jarry who made actual perceptual entry upon the consciousness states invoked by Cubism. For Picasso, it was simply a cognitive swipe. Stylistic games in playing to the crowd: part of the path to monoculture vapidity. Anyone actually “into” Cubism -- implications of “concretion of time” -- would have little or no interest in producing objects, like Jarry. Art object. Cultural object. There is such as an “object” of art distinct from the art-system of conception, its birthing sensibility? An art “object” has a discrete creator? An art “object” can be owned? Cultural property. Ha! Eh, what? The PATrimony, of course. The State sanctifies the artist as object because the mapping of ego sphere to object boundaries as art substantiates the mapping of ego sphere to territorial boundaries in definition of the State and its money. Continuity of the notion of title is thus maintained. The idea of inherent ownability through simple-identity is promulgated. Legal tender -- within these borders. Theft is property: PATrimony as culture. Rape by law: prudence of the juror. Symptom of brain impairment: _µT_m processing unstacked and reduced to ₁T₂ processing only. Art objects don't exist; cultural objects don't exist: they are afterimages, illusions, hallucinations which further impair the brain. What Artist is not self-canceling, does not destroy his-her work -- or leave it unsigned? Only an artist in an unstacked and reduced art-system sensibility: the Artist coerced. Picasso's women: projective identifications in transference, but one conference of birds, one kind of congress, one kind of commerce. Oeuvre. Provenance. Isn't it interesting how “art law” subtleties don't apply to antiquities? New brain and old brain. Michelangelo did not “work” the Sistine Chapel; that which the Sistine Chapel helps codify “worked” Michelangelo; indeed, “made” Michelangelo Michelangelo. Staatsnation (my preference over Nationenstaat) is a product of the application of force to the problem of assimilation and its maintenance; excepting “art” as propaganda, national culture of the State (Kulturstaats) has nothing to do with art-system sensibility as codification of a reality construct. Staatsnation usurps with the gun, fragments with the threat, so as to coerce the “state” of codification into a PATrimony. The cosmopolitan aesthetic, you see, not the aesthetics of those colonized: monoKulture. No conception of MetaKulture: codifying metarules of worldview propoundment per se -- in the general case. Instead, mappings from the ego sphere! Persons, not peoples. State culture and transState culture. For “them”, not Kulturnation: which is the “state” of a codification and its superposed transcendentals as MetaKulture. For the transState perspective on global monoKulture elaborated by an African in Princeton, see: “Whose Culture Is It?” by Kwame Anthony Appiah (The NY Review of Books, 9 February 2006).

Quite frankly, since the early-'80s I've had little success at reading well into Western books about consciousness. Consciousness there is with sleep, narcosis, general anesthesia, a stopped world, an immobile mind. Awareness of the enculturated percept is not consciousness; it is unconsciousness of the bare percept, Platonic amnesis. No-mind is conscious, not mind -- and no-mind is not absence of mind; it is presence of the undecomposed multivalue. Susan Greenwood gives many examples of the absence of this presence (The Nature of Magic: An Anthropology of Consciousness, Berg, 2005). This book is of considerable value, but it nonetheless illustrates the point made here. Quoting page 9 explicating “magical consciousness”:

…psychology is loosened from the strictly human sphere to meet with other minds in oak, fir, hawk, snake, stone, rain, and salmon; all aspects of a place make up [emphasis added] a particular state of mind -- a “place-specific intelligence” shared by all beings that live in the area [she quotes and paraphrases David Abrams' The Spell of the Sensuous which is drawn on application of Merleau-Ponty's approach to phenomenology].

Here we have Butor's le genie du lieu -- the genius of place -- by superposition-conjunction-fusion, and this is reflected throughout Greenwood's treatment by phrases like "togetherness of diverse elements" and "abductive systems link" (visual abduction, auditory abduction, cross-modal synaesthetic abduction) and "receptive to other" and "connections between" and "interrelatedness of all things" and "conjunction with other" and "participation with other" (i.e., Lévy-Bruhl's “law of participation”: participation inconsciente or participation mystique) and so on. Despite having been as a thirty-year-old ushered around a farm by a five-year-old girl, and having received her instruction as to how each type of wood talks, I must observe that the notion of quantum superposition is epiphenomenal to the atomism of the ₁T₂ mind; when, in fact, that which is decomposed has no logically- or ontologically-prior existence -- is an intemporal demergence as decomposition involute: direct sensory awareness as such being Platonic anamnesis. The socio-cultural “forms of use” -- to somewhat recast Swedenborg's term -- given to tropes, to metareference, so as to establish abductive linkage are not productively confused with the nature of Nature. Unlike the egoic human consciousness, Nature does not reference itself in the atomistic Many, but in the continuous One, which by degrees of inconscience, degrees of unconsciousness, degrees of ignorance, intemporally demerges by unfolding orders of logical-value and mathematical involutes to the appearance of Many.

I certainly very much like what Jeremy Narby is doing (e.g., The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge [Tarcher, 1998], and Intelligence in Nature [Tarcher, 2005]) but on some fundamentals I believe he is 180-degrees off course. Pretty darned pretty ain't beautiful. For instance, quoting from the first two paragraphs of Intelligence (p.1):

For fifteen years I have helped indigenous Amazonian people gain titles to their lands. These are people who believe that plants and animals have intentions… In the book The Cosmic Serpent, I presented the hypothesis that shamans take their consciousness down to the molecular level…

I do not believe that traditionally -- before modern exposure, that is -- indigenous Amazonian people believed that plants and animals have intentions. Like all animists everywhere in deep consciousness of relative-state identity-transparency, they believed that plants and animals are as free of discrete identity and Brentano intentionality (and hence passing-time reference and bounded simple-locality) as are humans the way they actually are, as opposed to how they currently and predominantly attribute themselves to be. That the “object” -- be it plant, animal, or human -- of the “subject” is animated is a projection from those identified with the ego sphere and its self-attributions. The ego falsely attributes to itself the “ability to do”, the capacity to actually autonomously intend, and, noting the difference between these self-attributions and people in relative-state identity-transparency, the ego attributes to such people its own attributions, but placed for them on the “object”, not the “subject” -- thus imputing a categorical distinction not experienced to the degree relative-state identity-transparency is experienced. In this sense, “animism” is a misnomer, a false attribution of egoic properties, where actually nonexistent (that nonexistence including the ego making the false attributions). Yes, parasites, parasites of the object. More precisely stated, the ego attributes ₁T₂-logical cognition to those experiencing some order of _µT_m-logical cognition supraordinal to and incorporating the ₁T₂ order. The absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct egoic sense of possessing intentional capability is a mere self-attribution based upon arbitrary logical exclusion of self-reference and orders of self-reference, _µT_m. Narby thereby makes the mistake of concluding that shamans take their consciousness down to the molecular level, when, actually, they take it down to the submolecular level. It is not with the nucleotide-sequence level of DNA that the shaman cognitively interlocks, but with the quantum-wave properties of superconductant core (which, via quadripolar-wave encoding, contains all the nucleotide-pair information) by which DNA radiationally interfuses with its environment Uuuump! Uuuump! Uuuump! all the way to the center of the galaxy and beyond. Cosmic seeding is by EMP-signature impress, not molecular dispersal. The ways genes are turned off and on: changes or differences? Gene regulation patterns: new or different? If mother's body pattern by protein release controls daughter's body pattern, at the beginning of linear-time this is a self-referential chicken-and-egg problem which cannot be solved in terms of ₁T₂ logic. If Evo-Devo genes are interchangeable across species, why assume linear-time evolution at all? And if genes are self-referentially controlled by what they direct synthesis of, proteins, why believe in genetic precedence more than logical, ontological, and temporal precedence under self-referential m-valued logics? The m-logically-valued, yet polarized, quantum-wave properties of DNA are not identical to the corpus of ₁T₂-logical genes constituting the molecule which they incorporate and connect to the rest of the multiverse. Whistle-and-hum speak by Dan Everett's Amazonian Piraha (“Unlocking the Secret Sounds of Language: Life without time or numbers” by Elizabeth Davies, The Independent, 6 May 2006) -- no notion of number, no testament to time -- kills Chomskyan generative recursive universal grammar, but does it kill a topological Montesquieu's universal grammar demerged atemporally from a universal semantics as sonic-visioning Musculpt carried by the quantum-wave properties of superconductant p-electron gas core of DNA voiced by dolphins, whales, Aboriginals, Bushman sound, Hottentot's click-speak? Narby, as a strategy of tribal defense, seeks ₁T₂ enclosures (legal titles defined in a jurisprudence developed on ₁T₂ Aristotelian-Baconian logic) of the geobody commons, which enclosures are no tribal defense at all -- rather, yet one more form of forced assimilation to egoic modes of cognition. Before entitling the commons -- and this is something Hernando de Soto neglects for similar reasons -- the very notion of the title qua title must be made _µT_m-logically-valued so as to bring it into conformance with relative-state identity-transparency. The only way to accomplish this is by implementation of m-logically-valued monetary units.

As if I had written “Bowl of the Poppy Plus Lotus Stem”! But little is it realized the degree to which Husserl's overall conception of the phenomenological object conforms to this image. Perception is much, much harder than conception. You gotta get right out there and perceive it along with the Master of Percepts, Proust: in Remembrance of Things Past, he notes that maybe the object is inert because we take it to be itself and only itself. A Zen master's wap to the head: poem as time machine, no contriver of imagined as real. Proustian subversion of Newton's First Law of Motion. If and only if the object is itself and only itself can it be inert enough to have inertia. A quantal non-simple identity can have no inertia: physics by Proust. Husserlian “horizon” of the object is a temporal extension of its “profiles” which are temporal extensions of its Cubist “concretion of time” facets. This is the “pure first-order logic” of the ideal Platonic object ₁T₂-logical consciousness (actually, its glutamate-etched processor) uses to construct the existential object in enculturation: ego-spherics transferred by projective identification to the object (subjective and objective). Drag an oscillator circling a point source through space over time and you get a corkscrew helix (drag also its doppelganger -- not-itself and only itself -- and you get a double-helix); accelerate this helix (and/or its double) and keep on accelerating it and it will turn back upon itself (like intracellular DNA under accelerating helix-coil transition); impart an accelerating time rate of change to the acceleration turning the oscillator back upon itself and you get… What? Topological reentry! The object, thus, is a cognitive bowl (in Higgs field), even a black hole of intentionality, in Husserl's “existing time”, a linear passive passing time, a time passing along elementary particles as if it were an accelerator stem attached to the bowl of the object. Ponderable object as a time machine, as a desktop accelerator linked to a mini-black hole computer which is simultaneously a cold-fusion beaker. Hypertemporal extension of Husserlian “horizon” yields event horizon of the ideal Platonic object. A nut-case idea, right? Pipe dreams! So much a tribal wanttabe, instead of Wheeler's Great Smoky Dragon, he postulates cosmos as a hallucinogenic Great Smoky Peace Pipe. Ha! Let's look at that through the lens of Scientific American's Special Edition 2006, “A Matter of Time”. Quoting page 5, the article by Gary Stix entitled “Real Time” (a typical postmodernist title by content of the article): “…one of the hottest themes in theoretical physics is whether time itself is illusory.” And again, “We are clock-watchers, whether by nature or training.” On to the article by Paul Davies (who, incidentally, did not respond 25 years ago to a letter asking for his reaction to the notion of “operator-time” explicated therein) entitled “That Mysterious Flow” (again, a typical postmodernist title by content of the article which describes how “All times are equally real” and thus how time itself doesn't flow): “In short, the time of the physicist does not pass or flow” (p. 8). And on page 6, “Nothing in known physics corresponds to the passage of time.” And again on the same page: “The passage of time is probably an illusion. Consciousness may involve thermodynamic or quantum processes that lend the impression of living moment by moment.” And on page 11: “Therefore, it appears that the flow of time is subjective, not objective.” And to the very crux of the matter, again page 11: “Quantum indeterminism implies that for a particular quantum state there are many (possibly infinite) alternative futures or potential realities.” Infinite, the word “infinite”. Horray! Horray! Almost boldly stated. They're getting there, yessiree! getting there. Such a temperament, thou! Art thy Nature but a Fragment? Husserl, in supporting Kronecker's (and subsequently Poincare's, Russell's, Weyl's…) position on Cantor, insisted, a priori, on selfsameness (an anti-Proustian itself-and-only-itself) of the object of perception, and froze the object into selfsameness with an a priori “existing time” prerequisite to Brentano intentionality, also a priori, which Brentano justified by hypostatizing time as remembering (which, for Brentano, was not Platonic anamnesis: a logical problem -- a major glitch -- Husserl had to find a way around if he was to arrive at his ideal Platonic object while simultaneously putting Cantor down). A mirage in their very nature! This is hardly British utilitarian Platonism, i.e., Philosophy 101's Perfect-chair Platonism. Of course, of course, of course (I won't say this 25 times, as that would get me excommunicated by the bon-ton literary establishment, but of course) Husserl, in this vein, had many Ideas based in Cartesian Mediations oops! that's Meditations -- most of which were mistaken, most particularly a priori postulation of a generalized intentionality enunciated by Brentano (enunciated thus by Brentano so as to shut up all those damn Introspectionists with their insufferable mutterings over self-observation which, if time is in remembering, can only be retroflexion, not authentic observation). And in making these mistakes, Husserl prefigured dissimulation of the wave-function in Schrödinger's time-independent wave equation. How does a linear, passive, passing time freeze selfsameness into the phenomenological object? You see -- yes, I know what the bon-ton literati think of “you see” -- Schrödinger's time-independence is not independent of all temporal notions; it is independence precisely of what Husserl regarded an “existing time”. Husserl, in supporting Kronecker's position on Cantor, had many, many “things” to contend with, dissolution of the foundations of logic being, perhaps, the most pressing. The reason it is necessary to be Against Bon-Ton Literary Stylistics is because much of those stylistics are based in mistakes Husserl made. Husserl was in High Protective Mode, not High Indifference, when he wrote the preface to Internal Time Consciousness which, a priori, postulated an “existing time” as the premise for reductive phenomenological exploration of experienced time. This a priori premise was the means chosen to kill the dissolution of foundations of logic Husserl saw transpiring all around him. The notion of “necessary”, the lawabidingness in inferential march of Aristotle's syllogistic, was dissolving, and only an “existing time” could restore the rule of law, the necessity of “the necessary”. It is over time that logic is rolled out into inferences. Remove passive passing linear time, and the inferences rolled out are suddenly stacked, in Schrödinger superposition. You have to have an “existing time” to distinguish ontological precedence from temporal precedence, and you have to have “something else” to distinguish ontological precedence from logical precedence (be aware that here we make close approach upon three-fold operator-time and the hypercomplex, complex and real Euler-Riemann zeta functions). No Baudelaire-world creators! No Rimbaudic sensual derangers! Don't -- Husserl screamed into dark night of his soul -- pull the rug out from under me by challenging axioms of logic! Challenge any other axioms you want to challenge; just don't touch the axioms of logic. And most especially don't challenge the axiom of logical determinism: the necessity of “the necessary”. If inferences are not necessary? Oh my God! they may not be selfsame, and each inference may have dark matters hiding inside of dark matters hiding inside of… Moments of matter that are not matters of moment! Husserl had to stop this, this infernal medieval witchery come back to haunt us, if the house of cards was to stop tumbling down. Which was precisely what Lukasiewicz -- challenging logical determinism -- was doing as Husserl panicked. But, actually, this Husserlian panicked postulation of an “existing time” was a brilliant stroke, for, subliminally, it established the connection Pauli later momentarily brought into awareness as “operator-time” only to quickly push it back into the subliminal by deeming this notion incompatible with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. How surprising! or rather Not so surprising! of course, you see? According to the “standard interpretation” Pauli stood by, the ponderable object of perception can only become localized by a collapse of… what? The “house of cards tumbling down”! What is superposed in the wave-function of Schrödinger's time-independent wave equation -- variously called, when Diracized to time-dependency (which according to Scientific American circa 2006 is probably only subjective), probability amplitudes, potentialities, proclivities, possibilities, relative-states, alternative futures, multiple scenarios… -- is the whole corpus of interferences “pure first-order logic and its demergent involutes” contains within its purview rolled out over passive passing linear time by glutamate-etched ₁T₂ mind: so-called observer-state/object-system interaction. In keeping the cards up there in the House of Logic, by panic postulation of an “existing time“, Husserl subliminally -- never explicitly acknowledged or elaborated -- found himself giving an account of the ponderable phenomenological object 180-degrees opposite to that which would become the basis of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics Pauli used to reject the notion of “operator-time” which peeked into consciousness by inference from the panic postulation made by Husserl. Circles inside of circles, self-reference inside of self-reference: the very notion by which the notion of a Gödel number arose! Of course, of course, of course Gödel never adequately stacked his self-referential inferences sufficiently to explicitly acknowledge Lukasiewicz's m-valued logics, let alone L sub-infinity, the very same infinity hiding inside Heisenberg indeterminacy. Instead, we are now told, Gödel sought the answer in seeking Leibniz's missing papers, an answer certainly missing from Leibniz's missing papers, but not missing (by direct implication -- which is to say by “necessary” inference -- only, however) from Lukasiewicz's not missing papers. Profiles, horizons, and event horizons of ideal Platonic objects are temporal and hypertemporal extensions of Cubist facets Gebser coined the term “concretion of time” to denote. According to Husserliana, elaboration of these is necessary for establishment in awareness of the localized object of perception. Ah, and here is the real crux: this is no “elaboration”; it is the actual “existing” Husserl by panic postulated as an “existing time”. Spontaneous fusion for constitution of the object over hyletic data, not spontaneous localization! But the fusion here is no fusion for there is no discreteness to the given; the given is continuous, Cantor's big C, the One, and data, hyletic and otherwise, must be “cut” from that One into Cantor dust. Only once Dedekind cuts have been made can spontaneous fusion transpire. Temporal extension relative to “existing time”. Come on, Dear Professor! this was just a substitute, a cognitive dildo, haptic harigata. A substitute for three-fold operator-time (logical, ontological, and temporal operator) carrying out operations of m-valued logics demerged by involutes and mapped over hypercomplex, complex, and real zeta functional numerical arrays. Time is an operator, not of egoic awareness, but of pure universal consciousness -- which is unconscious to egoic awareness -- a consciousness which becomes less and less pure and less and less universal the more it operates, each such operation being a Platonic forgetting of something, one or another relative-state superposed as the wave-function, this amnesis, this cutting (for a Dedekind cut is a forgetting into discrete existence) when carried to extremes of reductionism in egoic awareness constellating the absolutely-in-so-far-as-distinct (non-ideal, not Platonic) object of glutamate-etched enculturated awareness. Hyden's theory of molecular memory, neurological compartmentalization, and immunological segregation recapitulates -- in principle -- this Platonic amnesis. Memory as forgetting! I tell you it is by Tang-style “taking of opposites” that one gets a topological handle on the case. More acutely, embodiment of Hyden's theory is “engineered” by superconductant core of intraneuronal DNA, which is a wormhole time machine (possessing all the components described by Paul Davies in his article in the same special edition of Scientific American “How to Build a Time Machine”), simultaneously a quantum computer, simultaneously a nano-accelerator, and simultaneously a nano-cold-fusion beaker -- as is the double-helical feeder-band driven tornado radiating acoustically-modified gravity-wave modes, as is the double-helical feeder-band driven comet, as is the double-helical feeder-band driven spiral-banded galaxy. Object as a Great Smoky Peace Pipe! Since “existing time” is, essentially, glutamate etched, it hardly seems likely that constants are inconstant over time (see “Inconstant Constants” in the same issue of Scientific American), that they change with the flow of a “flow” glutamate etched -- though it certainly might appear that way. The inconstancy of constants is not over time (this is the House of Logic we are talking, not the House of Love), but in their being m-valued every time, all times. This m-valuedness of fundamental constants -- most importantly Planck time and Planck distance: all temporal and spatial measurement on Koch curves -- is what makes galaxies, comets, tornadoes, DNA, and oh so much more, subject to Heisenberg indeterminacy, an indeterminacy indeterminant only under glutamate-etched ₁T₂ logic (not _µT_m orders of logical-value supraordinate to the ₁T₂ order). The meaning of “indeterminant” is relative to the order of logical-value employed. There is no imaginable not real under some order of logical-value: that's life as poetry, poetry as life!

I hate to go back over things, be repetitive, you know, which violates the pseudo-aesthetic rules governing automatisms of NYC power editors (who certainly had no pre-publication look at Maurice Nicoll's six volumes of Psychological Commentaries, so repetitive as to clobber the reader over and over and over and over with the same feather pillow -- and still most readers don't get it). However… The 11 May 2006 issue of The NY Review of Books has a perfect example of why no matter how many repetitions… Writing about how some dysinformed biographers/literary-critics think Shakespeare might have been a woman, or any number of men, and how, whoever or how many Shakespeare was, or, rather, whoever or how many biographers/literary-critics think he was, his poems and plays must mean either this or that, Trinity College (which apparently has yet to get around to trivalent logic) professor Anne Barton draws on the Wittgensteinian rabbit-or-duck illustration to support her this-or-that argument, and says (in her theologically entitled “The One and Only”, p. 24) of the rabbit-duck, of the this-that, “What you cannot do… is register them simultaneously…” And on the facing page, page 25, onetime Undersecretary General of the United Nations, Brian Urquhart, under a caricature of George Bush the Younger, essays on “A [₁T₂-logic derived, prescriptive] rule-based international society” and the consequences of violating such rules -- legalistic formulas derived on basis of the unproven assertion that Nature abides by natural laws, laws formulatable in ₁T₂-logic terms. Urquhart's “The Outlaw World” decries divergences from prescriptive-rule abiding behavior under the unproven assumption that such rules can yield a functional system -- which virtually all of 20th century physics and mathematics and most of 19th century higher mathematics demonstrates is impossible. The simultaneous registration Barton proscribes, I submit, is the most immediate threat to Urquhart's fantasy, and this proscription has to be repeated over and over and over and over, if it is to remain a proscription. Now for my repetition, quoting from above:

Unless… Husserl's “intentional horizon” is a profile of that which is not at all intentional according to Kandinsky's “pure feeling”. Not thinking in words or images (sequential or stacked by superimpositions) but by “controlled” feeling-tones (sequential or stacked by superimpositions). Pure-feeling: Goode “looking through” a “stack” of such feeling-toned “thought” on the Pereira “layered transparent” stripped, like the Bride by her Bachelors, even, of all concrete contents: transcendental formal logic of the infinite. And why not? What else could an intention be if not a profile of a horizon? Even if Einstein's absolute limiting velocity is only m-valued -- not also m-logically-valued -- profiles and horizons are relative (to the transfinite step function over the hierarchies of multiples of c, c', and c''). And this is intimately involved with Rudolf K. Luneburg's “psychometric distance functions” of binocular visual space -- not only with skew-parallels and their pencils. Bracket not only the object, but the singularity of the object, its selfsameness, its being-itself-and-only-itself. Why assume that if the dog goes in, the cat must come out? Why posit duck or rabbit, not duckrabbit or rabbitduck? I mean, genetic engineering is exploring this challenge to the ₁T₂-logic “law of non-contradiction” by regressed projective identification: pigtomato, fishcarrot, and so on.

Demonstrating Barton's Fallacy a fallacy, however, does not require all this trans-Wittgensteinian complexity; simultaneous registration of rabbitduck is really rather simple, and with a little bit of work anyone can verify it. As Luneburg would have supposed, it's the eye of the rabbitduck, no less than the eye of the beholder, which contains the secret to identity transparency of rabbit and duck. Simultaneous registration requires voluntary dissociation, and one can toy at this fearsome matter without much effort (and one can always beat retreat at the last instant when threat to egoic identification becomes too great, as recoil into orgasm demonstrates in the sexual occasion of identity-transparency risk). Focus on the eye of rabbitduck and hold at the right and left periphery of visual field rabbit nose and duck beak. Now, it is necessary to “go diffuse” on the eye common to both rabbit and duck (this should be most easily accomplished by most women, as they are said to have the greater facility for diffuse awareness in comparison to most men). But the diffuse awareness spoken of here is not a mere fuzziness of visual apprehension of the eye of rabbitduck. No. Diffuse awareness requires a fuzziness (actually a “stack”) in self-definition of the possessor of the eye of the beholder of the eye of the rabbitduck. Attaining a modicum of this fuzziness in self-definition is most easily accomplished simply by intending an awareness of being aware of the eye of the rabbitduck. For the memetime (which is not the meantime) one is able to retain awareness of being aware, there will be a visual shift from pure binocular visual space to binocular visual space under “feeling space” modulation: this is immediately apprehended by the eye of the beholder as registration of a change in depth perception. For the memetime one is able to retain awareness of being aware of registration of the awareness of a change in depth perception, one will hold rabbitduck diffusely in simultaneous registration. To the degree one practices this, to the same degree is clarity of rabbitduck enhanced in awareness of awareness of awareness. And to the degree one becomes adept at “looking through” these simultaneous awarenesses, to the same degree can one live in a system that works without ₁T₂-prescriptive rules, absence of which is prerequisite to onset of the spontaneous order described by Schrödinger's time-independent wave equation. Living in such an awareness of awareness of awareness of awareness (repetition not as re-cursion, but as in-out/cursion) yields the maxim: (₁T₂-prescriptive) law is criminal (because it removes the prerequisites to spontaneous order). And the human species will not retain its life on this planet much longer in relation to a Nature that does not subscribe to ₁T₂-logically-valued laws, without successful cultivatiion of such spontaneous order. Try at supranational court and execute all the suicide bombers you want, be they Nazis, ex-Nazis, aspiring Nazis, onetime presidents or pregnant women, and this will only increase the incidence of collective-unconsciously-motivated crimes against humanity (agonistic self-cutting), as post-WWII history clearly indicates. Once-animistic peoples, denied direct conscious access to identity transparency, don uniforms as simulacra by projective-identification, be those peoples corpora of factory workers or other ant swarms. ISOization and Yuppiefication by Trust of World Heritage (an infantile undertaking compared to design of design systems in metaculture) will not save the next quarter of a million species to go into extinction, nor will it help a supraordinate hierarchification of the Cartesian-Newtonian-Westphalian nation-state system (e.g., United Nations) find a way to reverse a climate-shift dynamic Cartesian-Newtonian meteorologists have no idea how to reverse, or save with a molecular-biology-derived science of ecology a natural environment self-organizing under submolecular quantum principles. Nor will ₁T₂-logically-valued international laws successfully prescribe a way around ₁T₂-logically-valued thermodynamics such that is found a clean, cheap energy reservoir sufficient to the needs, let alone affluence and effluence, of seven billion people.

I stopped attending to John A. Wheeler's prescriptions during the mid-'80s, so I never came across that “on or off” quotation in respect to the nature of the pregeometry. I did not, however, need to see the quote to know that Wheeler referred only to the binary order-type of logical-value interpreted solely in terms of truth-value. I believe that was discussed quite adequately in his co-authored book Gravitation. The necessity of something like m-valued logic was apparent to me beginning in 1963 when I read J. G. Bennett's formulations regarding skew-parallel figures, which imply a geometry where entities are not selfsame -- and I instantly recognized this with photisms and major electrical surges as clearly involved in explaining the Shintoist states of multi-identity I had been inducted into as a child living a decade earlier in a wet-rice hamlet outside the little seaside town of Ashiya on the island of Kyushu, Japan. I ran across Post's 1921 paper on m-valued logics about the same time I read of Wheeler's notion of pregeometry (1975, if memory serves), so I immediately rejected a pregeometric binary calculus of propositions. And I also knew then that any pregeometric logical calculus was involved with “active time” because of Husserl's ideas concerning why space-thing constitution presupposes temporal constitution via a transcendental logic. But it took me quite awhile to get my head around technical aspects of Post's m-logically-valued notion, and even longer to learn about the actual history of Lukasiewicz. My primary motivation and sole enduring interest was to comprehend the states I had experienced as a child which occasionally continued to bubble up. My first communication in 1975 to Wheeler concerning “active time” and lattice logics explained in general terms this metapsychological motivation. I kept seeing references to a book by Lukasiewicz on Aristotle's syllogistic, but the Cornell Library system in 1975 did not have a copy of Aristotle's Syllogistic on the shelf. I found references to a Polish-language paper of 1910 on the law of contradiction and Aristotle, but I couldn't find the paper and couldn't have read it had I found it. Only with postings to the web decades later by Alexander Karpenko, Arianna Betti, and Alessandro Becchi did I begin to learn of the full dimensions of Lukasiewicz's work (but by then I had already reached a lot of my own conclusions).

One can only abhor what the bivalent-logic computer is doing to human cognition. Double-blind experiments are not good enough; they need to be triple-blind. Under the double-blind condition, one assumes that quantum processes transpiring in computer, imagining machine, and random number generator are no psi communicators. The fMRI machine is noninvasive on the cellular and possibly molecular levels, but it is massively invasive on the submolecular quantum level hypothesized to be responsible for superintegration under collective, cooperative, and critical non-psi and psi phenomena. Is it precognition or machine-to-man telepathy, for instance? The notion of precognitive logical paradox is order-of-logical-value dependent -- indeed, as is the very notion of “bias”. Biased versus unbiased is a ₁T₂ concept evermore dilute at higher and higher order-types of logical-value -- Lukasiewicz-Post m-valued logics being built upon orders of self-reference like that pejoratively explicated (so as to cognitively depotentiate) as “the liar's paradox”. Autocorrelations in bit sequences are indicators of q-bitic _µT_m-shadow points nesting ₁T₂-logical selfsame numbers. Non-selfsame numbers are numbered Gödel numbers shape-shifted under mereologies of super-self-entanglement and super-self-encipherment. It needs to be recognized that correlations are causes, in so far as _µT_m logics interpret the wave-function of the time-independent Schrödinger wave equation (not probability amplitudes): that's what synchronicity means. But “cause” under _µT_m logics does not have the same connotations and denotations as it has when restricted to the ₁T₂ order alone. And quantum phase correlations are not statistical correlations, which are so much hot air: the two should not be conflated. Operator-time does not permit the royal “random”: it permits _µT_m order-types of chronotopologies (seen “flattened” by ₁T₂ mind as autocorrelated temporal structures in memetime). Random numbers and probabilities are meme-ic creations. Entropy is absolutely relative to order-type of logical-value employed. Pure entropy cannot exist for reasons of Gödel incompleteness telescoped over (transfinite classes of) _µT_m order-types. Shape-shifting under ego-attributed Brentano so-called “intentionality” (actually more like Taoistic non-doing passive acceptance) -- appearing to ₁T₂ minds to alter the odds toward “objective reduction” -- is operator-time renumbering numbered Gödel numbers on the MVRS (m-logically valued reference space). Simple-identity is a meme-ic creation. A given memetime is an inferred path over the MVRS, and hence requires imputation of the existence of an inferrer. One does not write in inferences if one does not believe in the Law of Necessitation. The notion of free will assumes objective existence of a free-willer. Such discrete ₁T₂-logical entities exist, and collections thereof, but they exist only as memes in memetime, and they have to queue up to get the necessary beamtime for incarnation. In the meantime…

Now that Peter Duesberg's thesis about AIDS has again been publicly recapitulated (“Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science” by Celia Farber, Harper's Magazine, March 2006), I will recap the perspective from point of view of superconductant p-electron gas core of DNA. This is not exactly intermolecular electron transport chains in the Albert Szent-Györgyi sense -- as there is no conductivity along molecular backbone involved -- though the fundamental idea is similar, and was in part inspired by Szent-Györgyi's research and cancer thesis. More directly inspirational were thoughts on origins of systemic lupus erythematosus and the quantum properties of autogenic brain discharges. So, simply for the record and for whatever it's worth. After the paper was presented to the Autogenic Therapy Symposium of the 6th World Congress of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine in Kyoto at the end of August 1977, wherein our ideas on DNA superconductivity were first publicly aired, I was asked what the likely medical implications were. In conversations over the next several days, I explained that I thought the immune system could collapse in absence of a discrete vector or ionizing radiation. Presence or absence of a virus like Epstein-Barr in mononucleosis (aka, in absence of virus, chronic fatigue syndrome). Presence or absence of DNA viruses. Presence or absence of RNA viruses. Which does not mean that the virus can play no pathogenic role; only that it did not get through anti-viral immunity by its own unaided efforts. According to the mathematical model, DNA found in vivo in each histological type would have a unique frequency response window, waveform, and critical intensity. A subsequent paper containing the full-blown mathematical model published in 1979 by the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry (a journal that “a classical molecular biologist” [Farber, p. 52] like Peter Duesberg is not too likely to read) described two ways in which this could be experimentally tested. Other, more complicated ways, involving instrumental innovations were known to us at the time. The frequency response window, waveform, and critical intensity of the molecule (presumably also RNA and immunoproteins) would vary, not only between cell types, but from species to species, thus providing a truly unique identity fingerprint. Viruses made of DNA and RNA would have unique identity signatures too, and would radiate these signatures, just as would cellular DNA.

On the level of molecular biology, Peter Duesberg's biology, that is, DNA is DNA, in vivo or in vitro; on the submolecular quantum level, however, this is not the case. The frequency response window, waveform, and intensity is a unique immunological signifier for self-identity sustained by the frequency funnel that beats down the impinging ambient radiation to the natural frequency of the given cell type, and even the location and topological configuration of the molecule within the cell. Topological configuration is determined by nonlinear temporal operators described in the canonical equation of the model: acceleration and time rate of change of acceleration of helix-coil transition. Continuous repetitive beating down through the frequency funnel of the ambient-radiation input, establishes a place-specificity component -- like the “tank” of a superheterodyne radio receiver -- to immunological memory, only this place-memory is not a space place, but a temporal place, a time structure. The canonical equation of the model describes exactly how this autopoiesis transpires -- via “temporal curl” not spatial curl -- and how this “temporal curl” is responsible for formation of p-electron parcels and generation of quadripolar coherent waves which emanate from the molecule carrying along all the information associated with nucleotide-pair codons, and a great deal more. Self-identity here being marked by a quantal wave-function, it cannot be the simple-self-identity assumed by molecular immunology. The identity marker is m-valued, each such value being a relative-state of the subsystem-system-supersystem composite arrayed from resonance to elementary particle to molecule, cell, organ, the organism-environment interface, and beyond.

Any shift of the frequency response window's normative parameters alters the molecule's immunological signature, activating autoantibodies. This could be accomplished by ionizing or non-ionizing radiation impingement and by chemical dosing. If there were a latent inherited frequency anomaly -- a diathesis -- it could be activated by radiation impingement of the requisite frequency or by dosing with the critical chemical. Once DNA's frequency response window is chronically shifted, the molecule becomes immunologically alien and anti-DNA antibodies are formed. Morphological cell changes -- like that of the diagnostic “LE cell” -- follow in due course from these alterations of DNA function and structure. Formation of oncogenes and aneuploidy would not be unexpected findings under such quantum biochemical circumstances. The superconductant DNA model also suggests that the p-electron parcel temperature oscillations are intramolecular and intracellular biological clocks modulated by ambient radiation flux (intracellular, intraorganismic, environmental, cosmic background: all beat down through the frequency cone). During replication, DNA helix-coil transition rates are determined by collective, cooperative, and critical ensemble behaviors of the p-electron parcels of the core about which the helices coil. These are quantum behaviors associated with establishment of long-range phase correlations. At the critical Curie temperature, central to the mathematical model, the correlation length goes to infinity and far-from-equilibrium phase transition instantaneously snaps to super-self-entanglement and onset of superconductivity, which lasts for duration of transcription. As the model describes exact mathematical relationships between critical variables, there are ways to study this independent of in vitro analysis. At instant of transition, and throughout the period of transcription, coherent waves pulse-code burst from the molecule, as the molecule receives and processes environmental radiation input. Superintegration of cellular functions, particularly their exquisite timing, are largely due to this super-self-entanglement and its radiation signature.

Chronic stress sustained by the organism is recorded as persistent dampenings or persistent accelerations, by altered p-electron parcel ensemble behaviors outside the normative band of helix-coil transition rates and rates of rates, which will alter velocity, acceleration, and time rate of change of acceleration of codon-pair replication and the frequency of coherent waves radiated by the molecule -- as well as, by autocorrelation, the response window which is the molecule's identity signifier. Chronic stress, therefore, can also modify the molecule's immunological signature. Chronic stress, be it the persistent identity disequilibrium associated with adolescence, gender flux, demise of culture specificity, long-term misapplication of some meditation technique, or exposure to the combat environments of warfare or business, or the continuous jet lag and melatonin deficit of the super-rich, will not affect immunological competency to the same degree as will nutritional stress. And nutritional stress, unless extreme, will not affect immune responses to the same degree as repeated exposure to environmental pollutants or chronic drug use. And nothing will affect variables of autoimmune and immune competency to the same degree as modifications of the electromagnetic environment, if those modifications happen to fall within the series of hairline-thin frequency response windows of living systems. And since no attention is given to these critical hairline-thin windows in design of electronic equipment, we can safely assume that some such windows are presently encroached upon. This will be particularly pathogenic, if the organism in question has an inherited frequency anomaly within the hairline-thin window being encroached upon. Such an encroachment could take place in the presence or absence of a disease vector. In such presence, say of an RNA virus with the same hairline-thin frequency response window, antiviral immunity of the cell to that specific RNA virus would be reduced from the normal, thus providing an opportunity to breach anti-viral immunity. Once this transpires, the whole population corpus possessing the inherited frequency anomaly is especially susceptible to the infection, which then spreads by the normal epidemiologic means beyond the entry-level population corpus, displaying a preference for other population groups which have sustained other forms of immune system debilitation. People were mystified by these ideas in 1977, and they have remained so.

The best response I can offer to that is simply to recommend that you read Robert Augustus Masters' book Darkness Shining Wild (Tehmenos, 2005). I know of no better introduction to why individual resistance to m-logically-valued identity-transparency should have become collective and why that collective resistance should have become so massive as to induce world wars. Masters' book takes the reader inside the dread, fear, and loathing animating the gut reactions motivating mathematicians and physicists relative to the issues described in “Echo of the Mockingbird”. This exceptionally valuable book puts the reader within a self-catalyzed bad trip, as all such are. What in Autogenic Training are called “neutralization antagonizing forms of resistance” (NAFR), Masters manifested massively, thus illustrating in an individual case the intense thematic evasions which form the basis of collective displacements, projections, projective-identifications, which, in turn, facilitate the transference regressions constellating collective psychic energy deposits (libido) to the socially conferred role attributions authoritarian personalities like, say, a Hitler, identify their personas with. And Masters' psychosomatic difficulties, which he expertly, insightfully, and critically chronicles -- likely even facilitating the physical NDE involving respiratory failure, cyanosis, and seizures -- resulted from how these NAFR were magnified by his obsessive clinging to the I-sense in face of precipitous major challenge to its validity and utility by the quantum biochemical effects of the drug he inhaled. This is a very good portrait -- at a near limiting case of intensity, thus deeply clarifying the involved issues (what Being John Malkovich really means, one could say, in so far as being another, in the Nature of things, is not possibly one-to-one, one-over-one, into or onto, compacted, integrated, or differentiated and always involves becoming the universal covering surface, say, by knowledge through identity transparency) -- of how people frequently respond to direct experience (not merely the idea of it or the lovey-dovey huggy-hug encounter group version) of full-blown m-logically-valued identity transparency in the raw -- and an illustration of why Abel's discovery (which was called the “Impossibility Theorem”!) in 1826 of transcendental m-valued variables (and subsequent related developments leading to the part-whole identity-transparency of denumerable transfinite sets -- Matte-Blanco's The Unconscious as Infinite Sets -- proved by Cantor with the infamous diagonal proof, later reincarnated in Gödel's proof, and on to the Lukasiewiczian m-valued logics contextualizing Gödel) has been so strongly resisted as to produce world wars. M-valued logics -- as history so frequently has it -- contextualized Gödel before Gödel, and he ignored those logics for reasons Masters knows firsthand, but none of this has to do with matters linear.

I can resonate with Masters' phenomenologies, for I was thrown into similar inner circumstances by a meditation-and-PTSD-induced gran mal seizure (described in MOON) on a similar level of intensity and over a similar period. Several months of terror-filled nights, several years of recovery time -- on the back of a personal history of approximately a dozen NDE's, major childhood experience of identity transparency, and lifelong -- from earliest childhood memories (not so unusual, as a Japanese Japanese-garden coworker had similar memories) -- daily experience of subclinical autogenic brain discharges involving all sense modalities, taste polymorphism, by way of example.

There is precious little bare phenomenological description offered by Masters, and that is where the NAFR come in. I will quote selectively from his account placing bare phenomenology in italic script and NAFR in bold script. Some two dozen forms of NAFR have been identified (by analyzing voluminous clinical records going back to the 1920s of “autogenic verbalizations” made during periods of extended “autogenic abreaction”); I will not try to distinguish them in Masters' text. Popular parlance: emotional greenhousing, hysteria-valuation, metaphysical prescription by way of premetaprogramming march of brain discharge phenomena, thus disrupting electrochemical unloading by trophotropic mechanisms. Masters masterfully verbalizes without apparent censorship for self-protection, which is a great and courageous service to have performed. Quoting Masters very sparsely from pages 3-23:

…blindly spinning and falling, WORKING VERY HARD TO NOT GIVE FREE REIN to my wildly panicking mind… A horizonless INSANITY… dizzyingly irregular, complexly angled and involuted, wide and narrow and then wide again [fractal image generation upon sequences of rapidly repeating autogenic brain discharges: such images, along with color fields, photism bursts, and Belsonesque polymorphic sounded-forms are omnipresent visual and auditory phenomena during autogenic abreaction, clinical and subclinical]… an extremely thin strand of attention… A spectral filament linking me to a glimmer of basic sanity… I MUST NOT LET GO OF IT… this unperimetered, amorphous MONSTROSITY… BY SOUL, I MEAN OUR PERSONAL ESSENCE, OR THAT DEPTH OR STAGE OF INDIVIDUALITY IN WHICH EGOITY IS CLEARLY AND FUNCTIONALLY PERIPHERAL TO BEING… No outside, no inside. No time… an imagination-transcending, overwhelmingly sentient CHAOS in which everything, including the nonphysical, was inseparable from everything else… finding myself bodiless in a horizonless HORROR that was MADLY AND MONSTROUSLY pulsating… unable to locate myself -- or anything else -- anywhere in particular. I had no body, not even the slightest semblance of a dream-body or mental-body, and I had absolutely no sense of where I was… AND WHAT WAS I NOW?… It was a timeless, boundless CHAOS, continuously creating and consuming itself on every sort of scale [self-reference, Ouroboros, Klein bottle, Cantorian-fractal spacetime]… Here, awareness and its objects caromed without warning in and out of a SICKENING fusion, UNSPEAKABLY AND ALARMINGLY inseparable… Contracting UNCONTROLLABLY was extremely frightening, but so too was expanding UNCONTROLLABLY… It seemed that at any moment I would be SWALLOWED UP in an IRREVERSIBLE MADNESS. Everything and everyone appeared to be but transparent manifestations or maskings of the Real, all caught up in a NEVERENDING web of creation and destruction. Everything food for something else, FOREVER AND EVER. Seeing this only reinforced my horror. There were no independent forms, no discrete beings, but only the ENDLESSLY CONTINGENT APPEARANCES OF THE UNKNOWABLE but my recognition of this was far from joyful and peaceful… The GATES had been DYNAMITED, seemingly BEYOND any foreseeable REPAIRING. My hyperacute, gaping, shock-driven SENSE OF Eternity and the immeasurable, achingly populated sweep of time literally made me shake and buckle… Now I was completely INSIDE IT, UTTERLY LOST, immersed in an EDGELESS domain of look-alike, spike-headed waveforms, each one sentient and subtly scaly, moving protoplasmically in endless procession in all directions [very exemplary of the fractal images which are the constant accompaniment of abreaction through an extended period of autogenic brain discharges]… Through this opening the countless ALIEN forms spontaneously came streaming, immediately metamorphosing into flowers, birds, trees, humans… [personified fractals and an analogical model of decomposition of the m-logically-valued reference space by mathematical involutes unto Cantor dust, i.e., Aurobindo's “warm-golden dust of Supermind” and Kusama dots: this imagery is especially clearly illustrated on pages 674-5 of MOON, Vol. 2. In a footnote on page 25 of Darkness Shining Wild, Masters quotes Da Free John: “…We MUST TAKE ATTENTION AWAY from its preoccupation with, or bondage to, this infinite medium of dots…” An obvious misinterpretation of the dots -- a given such dot, the locus of numbered Gödel numbers stacked on a point of the universal covering surface which is the m-logically-valued reference space or base state of Tzog-chen -- and a counseling that ATTENTION MUST BE TAKEN AWAY from those dots].

Inner Musculpt as _µT_m-logical mathematical notation! What the brain not contained by the brain always is doing! Platonic anamnesis. Who nowadays is adequately prepared for such an experience as this when it first comes? That we are not is a sad affair. After how many thousands and thousands of years of such experience? Prescriptive enculturation is the culprit. Glutamate flooder! Neuronal etcher! Blank-blank your culture! Culture has no socially redeeming value. Over-valuing the artifacts of concrete cultures in a Jamesian pluriverse, or even an accelerating post-quantum-relativity multiverse, is on a psychopathic par with over-valuing ketamine HCl sans Valium or with stigmatizing Nature's foremost population control measure in an age verging on human cloning so as to achieve extreme over-carrying-capacity suicide behaviors as collective projective-identification with SICKENING fusion. The only thing worse than culture is monoculture; the only thing better than culture is metaculture.

---

Return to:

•Top

•Home page