One reaches romantic maturity when they have accepted their “opposite” side and instead of looking for their opposite, they look for the truely “other”.
At the early stage of consciousness, you experience time and space as complex event matrices, and by referring to it as a stage I don’t mean to imply a temporal sequence. This is all atemporal.
As you sort through the various event matrices (and by event I mean something more along the lines of a black holes event horizon than a start time for a series of activities) you select a subset of these pocket dimensions, like mathematical domains, in which the elements of your desired research/experimentation can be true, for lack of better terms. Basically, which time space bubble has the resources and the bandwidth to fulfill your personal processing requirements.
And does language enable us to put order to and to “understand” such matrices? It does, but it gets complicated. There are many emergence myths in our world, really every culture had them, and they all try to describe this process. We emerge from the place I am describing to “real space” through a process that could be called actualization.
Now this is not the only process you are running. You are running countless processes, each serving a different purpose in the bigger scheme of things, so to speak. All of these processes serve to assess a body of information comparable to a whole universe, a sort of metaphysical cloud computing, and each manifest being serving as a sort of crowd sourcing agent in the bigger work.
Ever feel like your sense of self is strangely limited? Almost out of context? Like you are just watching a shallowly scripted TV program rather than living an immersive life?
I feel that my “sense of self” is limited by the stories I tell myself or expanded by those stories, also.
This is where we get down to the more familiar elements of language. The human brain has the capacity to take in a narrow range of input. This by itself is a language. Without any other process going on, that range of input includes information contained primarily in your physical form, as well as information from your environment. These are not actually separate languages. Together they form syntax, and even without complex vocalization this syntax would still exist. This just means the physical world around us defines the information in our bodies. This reasonable to say?
Yes, but not only for us — also for any animal and even plants. Yes, everything included. I was just focusing on things from a human point of view. I was worried I was getting too out there or abstract.
Where things get complicated language wise is when intention comes in. Intention is the output function of our personal information channels. Your presence here is an extension of a more complex being in order to contact an equally complex being. I know I am mixing terms here but I think it’s necessary for clarities sake as paradoxical as that may seem. Physical Travis is just the dendrite reaching out to make contact in a synapse with the neighbouring neuron. That’s why physical Travis exists as a physical being. Otherwise being an implicate information pattern would be adequate.
We’re communication channels? Yes, if by “we” you mean organic beings. An end to a means rather than a means to an end. The thing is, we are not living in a computer simulation or anything like that, but in order to allow cross fertilization of our respective universes we have to extend beyond the otherwise very clear and structured state of being. In order to get smarter we have to dumb ourselves down. That’s what I meant by an end to a means rather than a means to an end.
Like we need power transformers to step down the voltage to make it usable. Very much so.
Are you saying that the first step in the educational process must be the recognition of ignorance? Perfect.
Like connecting two computers with a wire. Indeed, and it is a very complex problem this understanding of ignorance. Some people make joking statements like, “Math is hard!” Well, “terraforming” chaos makes any other effort look like child’s play.
So, there are things “harder” than math…? Harder than defining ephemeral concepts like qualia, harder than the hard problems of consciousness. At our start, consciousness is a science. The primary science which means metaphorically it is also a technology.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.