index

 "Maybe" courtesy I, Becky Hell Owl

Forward

Introduction

Elements in Crisis Part I
Elemental Crisis
Non-exclusion
That Cat′s Something I Can′t Explain
Intentional Functions in Superposition
Don′t Try to Bend the Spoon


Metalanguage vs Anti-aesthetic Part II
Modern Apocalypse
Everything is True




works cited
...

Forward

Complexities and Conformity: Elements of the Modern Eye was begun in 2006 for a degree program at Granite State College, University of New Hampshire. This is the first complete on-line publication. At this time some grammar and spelling errors have NOT been omitted due to lost files, old programs, and genral time considerations. Interactive (in text) points of reference for works cited soon to be added.

MEM

works cited

1 “Law of Noncontradiction,” Wikipedia, Jan 15, 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Jan 30, 2007

2,3 “Schrödinger's Cat,” Wikipedia, Oct 18, 2006. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Jan 30, 2007


4 “Occam’s Razor,” Wikipedia, Oct 18, 2006. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Jan 30, 2007

5 “Uri Geller,” Wikipedia, May 12, 2007. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Jan 30, 2007

Everything is True

Everything is true. Nothing is permitted: Even when viewed among a certain bijective function, this axiom remains highly suspect. Such a function would simply and neatly limit the possibility of all experience by disallowing the expression of all possibilities, which seems to run counterintuitive to all instinctual models of survival. Despite the fact that not all symbols or ideologies are able to translate into other systems and beliefs, an objective truth, one that suggest the restriction of every movement of every kind to every degree, can be recognized as a singularity. The idea of the singularity and the idea of apocalypse are linked by similar definition. Philosophically, a singularity describes a point of no return. Mathematically, it can be represented in the equations of motion, thermodynamics and inertia. Theoretically, a singularity is unable to be fully described or experienced directly, as there is no perspective from which a reference point can be made by direct observation. Consider the following statement:

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted

Here, the inverse function the original axiom is expressed. This statement lies completely within the grasp of the human experience, as any attempt of understanding regulates truth regulates the degree or capacity of freedom. Yet the ideas of truth and freedom are not mutually exclusive. With out truth there may be no freedom, and with out freedom, there may exist no truth. The latitude between ideas of absolute truth and absolute freedom represents a crossing of a philosophical singularity. As each axiom is asked to conform to the parameters of its inverse function, the effects demonstrated by this crossing are made visible. Although the actual point of singularity remains veiled (the contemplation of nothing seems to remain both futile and useless), it is the notable change between ideologies can easily be measured. The observable and measurable difference between these axioms allows key insights into the properties of the singularity.

Modern Apocalypse

History will, undoubtedly, recognize the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001 as the signaling endpoint of the 20th Century. Collectively in one form or another humanity had braced for possible monumental disaster nearing the century’s close. Y2k threatened the disruption of a newly formed yet fragile technological infrastructure regulating the flow of commerce and information. Prophetic ideologues from centuries past forecast visions of doom and devastation, while ancient myth pointed towards a great winding down of a celestial mechanism. What ultimately manifest at the Millenniums turn was, in some sense, less expected. The scale and degree of terror unleashed by this Modern Apocalypse is measured by one and only one important fact – this was not the end.

Perhaps the events of 9/11 remain too close in the vortex of time to rightly assess their larger, long-term, multigenerational ramifications, but what immediately was felt on 9/11 continues to be felt through the ripples and reverberations made by those people who responded to the disaster. For a short time, the countries national identity, pride and strength echoed a sense of heroism not seen since the Second World War. If there is a lesson here, it is within that quick glimpse into the absolute humanity of man in the face of his absolute brutality. The loss of life and devastation on American soil was with out precedent any sense of national pride or unity would eventually dissipate among sentiments of revenge and political mismanagement.

At this scale the magnitude of devastation was unmatched, save for the tragic arrogance and the loss of opportunity for country to listen, lead, and inspire. Instead political maneuvers manipulate the crisis at hand to further internal political agendas. By choosing not to acknowledge the threats to a broader cultural integrity, national interests and resources were effectively bound to continuing war and bloodshed. As the magnitude and depth of destruction is amplified, a now distinctly polarized, apathetic, and distracted population surrenders easily what were once inalienable rights at the heart of a national identity. The nation-state is set on edge by the lure of continual disaster, both real and imagined. Sacrifices of individual liberty, autonomy, and personal freedom are what purveyors of the cultural experience recognize as Modern Apocalypse.

In some fashion every civilization accounts for its own ending or demise. Prohibitions within the cultural edifice, despite an apparent or even pleading sense of urgency, do not promote the sustainability of culture; as such parameters exist to maintain a sense of boundary between cultural identities. It is in this cultural-mythosphere that culture norms intersect to form collective experiences. Apocalypse will always remain a modern convention as manifestations of the Apocalyptic are wholly based in the present. The West’s almost fanatical attachment to ideas of Apocalypse as the end of civilization or the end of time – generated mostly from within the Christian tradition – misinterprets a construct of introspection and revelation. Although there may be nothing less certain as an actual “fossil record” of – who penned what – during the first centuries A.D. (suggesting certain texts may be instead the continuation of much older oral traditions), the author of the final book in the Christian New Testament, The Book of Revelations, attributed to St. John the Divine, through a complex sequence of imagery, attempts the resolution of the universal struggle initiated among archetypal sources and symbols of power, which begins in the Christian Bible’s first book, the Book of Genesis. What is often read as a literal portrayal of the events of an inescapable yet undetermined future can also be seen in a context which binds the concerns of the author more closely to conflict between early Christian sects and the Roman Empire. Despite even the best historical positioning or preteristic localization, The Prophecy of St. John, part hallucinatory dreamscape and part numerological puzzle, part wrath of god and part political treatise, yields a powerful and haunting iconography, but not one that simply contextualizes or re-interprets historical events. The epic of this saga and the stage such drama un-folds upon connects, even passively, the once critical function of the shamanic experience, to the now dormant collective imagination.

...Instead try and realize the truth, there is no spoon.

Nonexclusion takes us neatly into and out of a series of layering equations where subtle yet deeply varied permutations create complex, cohesive, and seemingly seamless wholes. The intention of the function of probability is a key by which a representation quantum phenomenon is manifest. A somewhat more obtuse example of nonexclusion can be seen in the example of Uri Geller and his claim of psychic ability. Geller, who caught the attention of late-night television audiences in the mid-seventies and became a somewhat infamous television personality, demonstrated a range of paranormal abilities directly from the “will power and the strength of his mind.” Although there is much controversy surrounding Geller’s claims, critics have never been able to fully disprove his abilities. “Bending spoons” demonstrating his power of telekinesis became the trademark of Geller’s psychic Showmanship. Illusionist and magicians offering alternative explanations have made similar demonstrations proving that similar actions cam be caused from slight of hand. Geller, however, claims his actions are proof of an authentic ability. From the perspective of the general public, there is only the decision of which camp to align with, the believers, the skeptics or the undecided. Although there were attempts of scientific analysis at the Stanford Research Institute and the University of London, Geller’s abilities have never been verified by science in the eyes of his critics.

While nonexclusion does not offer verifiable proof of such claims, it does give Geller the benefit of the doubt in that it cannot exclude Geller’s accounting of these events as being verifiable. But doing so, especially through science, skirts a line between observational fact and what is seen at as subjective reasoning. To underscore this point further we can look at the Geller effect from several perspectives with a few exaggerations and supposed assumptions.

Any viewer witnessing such a display of the minds uncharted ability becomes an active participant in the phenomena. While skeptics actively separate themselves from the validity of Geller’s experience, those who are less inclined to skepticism, actively take part in the minds ‘bending’ of the spoon. Unlike Geller who we assume knows his actions are either real or fraudulent, the non-skeptic is left with a dark paradox. Believing one’s eyes defies the minds normal ration and reasoning process, while accepting the break down of this reasoning calls into question the very ability to define or verify what the eyes see. For a non-skeptic there is no way out of this logical-illogic feedback-loop. One can imagine a similar circumstance where two separate observers both witnessing Geller’s spoon bending disagree on what is actually seen. It is this scenario that precisely outlines principles of nonexclusion. In the largest context, such disagreements of an observational reality would both undermine and oppose the unity scientific thought. In a lesser sense, discrepancies between perspectives or vantage points go completely unnoticed. Nonexclusion reconciles these discrepancies not simply by applying the effects or the probability of all possibilities, but by separating or excluding the nature of experience from that of perception. What is perceived is a sub-set within the totality of experience. It is reasonable then to assume that what is experienced is more than what is perceived.

Perception both reveals and conceals principles of nonexclusion. Nonexclusion implies that all things beings equal are equally relevant and cannot be excluded. Nonexclusion does not exclude exclusion, anymore than noncontradiction excludes contradiction (if there were one thing that was and was not in the same respect and at the same time, then according to principles of noncontrodiction such a thing would also exist in order for noncontradiction to avoid contradicting itself). Unless we are the “Geller” such experiences will always lie outside of perception, and even then such psychic experience may not be readily perceivable.

Intentional Functions in Superposition

It bears repeating - the intention of any system is inherent within the parameters of the variables of that system. What Schrödinger is really trying to nail down is not so much the apparent contradiction between distinctions of what is living or what is dead, but the timeline or place this event occurs. Again, we see here the core of the fundamental disturbances of quantum superposition, what Schrödinger sought every scientist, mathematician, or dabbler in occulted sciences eventually realizes they cannot see. As Einstein cryptically exposed one cannot get around the assumption of reality, yet reality cannot remain independent of quantum function, and if one is honest, the conclusion cannot be escaped that it is quantum function that informs reality.

The intension of Schrödinger’s puzzle is a determination as to the state of a cat, alive or dead, within this quantum death trap. Schrödinger has attached the value or determination of life or death to quantum function. By its nature quantum function is indeterminate, yet the cat is determinate of only one function (life or death) and is incapable of quantum superposition. Superposition, however, by its nature is not restricted to the same functions as a living cat and therefore may correctly overlay its values, even if temporarily, onto this system. Here the cat is able to remain in a state of superposition, within cross components of being both alive and dead, being either alive or dead, and being neither dead or alive without interference or contradiction.

The scenario is far less ridiculous than it might seem, according to the axiom of Occam’s Razor “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.”3 When a direct observation is made within the quantum cat box, superposition is turned off, probabilistic waveforms collapse, and deterministic values can be set once again.

That Cat's Something I Can't Explain

The principle of nonexclusion is created from the tenets of logic, uncertainty, and probability. Together they form a sort of quantum reasoning. Quanta - originally denoting quantity or ability to quantify has evolved (or devolved) to connote undifferentiated or undetermined states of being – but what of undifferentiated reasoning? An easy example is to look at pre-existing examples of these ideas (the principle of nonexclusion is not a new or previously un-thought of gesture; it is, however, a term with which definition(s) may not have been associated before).

The Resolution of Schrödinger’s Cat, the quantum riddle published in 1935 by Erwin Schrödinger, clearly demonstrates the fully functional (and non-contradicting) reasoning ability of nonexclusion. To solve this puzzle, one must ask: Is the cat alive or is the cat dead? Initially Schrödinger, like many of his contemporaries, was a skeptic of many of the new theories developing in response to the recently discovered wave/particle dilemma of quantum phenomena. The publication of "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik" (better known as just Schrödinger's Cat) was a very unambiguous attempt at exposing one of apparent frauds or contradictions within quantum mechanics, superposition (quantum objects which occupy the same space at the same time). Even Albert Einstein would weigh-in with his seemingly congenial support of the thought experiment. He writes in to Schrödinger 1950:

“You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality—if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + [release of hydroacid] charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.”2





Schrödinger’s argument centered on the idea that a real object, one living and breathing, such as the cat, could not experience anything remotely near superposition, revealing a fundamental underlying flaw in the translation of quantum mechanics. Einstein, in his response, correctly recognizes the limitations and almost ludicrous situations of the quantum dilemma and astutely warns of the danger that reality here tends to run amok. Laid out, the experiment looks like this, Schrödinger writes:

“One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.”2

Despite the classical problem of situations within superposition, the apparent anomaly, the experiment of Schrödinger's Cat perfectly streamlines the function of nonexclusion. So, tell me is that cat alive or is that cat dead?

Nonexclusion

As systems unfold in complexity, so do corresponding values of factoring equations. Ever since the first paradigms of measurement appeared in the human psyche, which demanded, simply enough, that phenomena be both observable and repeatable in order to catalog or record its influence, science has provided a framework of evaluation and analysis. Yet from within its own constraints and processes of discovery, like a great mythological Titan devouring its progeny, science precludes its own systems of knowledge. The physical universe, as we sense it for example, seems to be described quite elegantly by laws of Newtonian motion, yet this motion describes at best, only a practical experience of reality. Left long enough and without necessary sustenance, science may finally be unable to avoid devouring itself.

The intention of a formalized system of proofs, such as the scientific method, has always been a gradual unfolding of established and verifiable laws governing all known aspects or actions of the universe. To a modern sensibility it is reasonably understood, however, that there is no single or finite set of laws governing a totality of experience. What once was vehemently rejected as unnatural, contradictory to reason or doctrine, now is deeply rooted in the paradigm of a collective psyche. From a flat earth to geo-centric models of our solar system, worldviews have advanced small steps toward a more articulate attunement to a larger universal picture. Built one on top of the next, paradigms or worldviews are assimilated from norms of cultural and biological evolution, a shifting of awareness allowing breakthroughs of perception forcing new coherent worldviews to emerge. There is no inherent value in one paradigm above another, other than its function within a collective determinate or purpose. Most operate on undetectable levels and can only become visible when called into question by other emerging views, which contradict or challenge longstanding or previously unquestioned traditions.

Most observations, in the external world, are made directly. Direct observation allows for the immediate assimilation of information, which is experiential, tangible, and in some respect relevant to biological, geological, or even astronomical designs. Indirect observation, although less palpable, is equally viable in its ability to discern the effects of phenomena interacting within the universe. The Thought experiment, of course, proves to be a fruitful example of indirect observation. In their own way and in their own time, both Socrates and Einstein championed experiments of this nature. Before modern systems of analysis, it would seem that observation and thought occupied much of the same meaning, assuming the role of science was something more akin to philosophy, yet closer to religion than what we know of philosophy today. What Socrates directly observed becomes contained within an indirect observation of a larger universal function. Although Socratic thought remains undetached from its internal and external worldviews, it separates from contemporary understanding, just as a moral relativism is distinctly un-related to bijective functions of observable external phenomena.

Inherent to any system is the intention of that system working within the parameters of a given function. In relation to systems analysis, Einstein was able to make determinations involving an unseen subtle body of the universe with purely the mind’s eye of observation. The essential problem, according to Einstein, was the idea of motion (or gravity) in relation to its effect on light. Objects traveling at near light speeds demonstrated the breakdown or inversion of Newtonian logic - what was once a constant in the Newtonian universe is now a variable within Einstein’s field equation. The effect of Einstein’s new picture of the universe is systemic, yet almost unperceivable. The further development of ideas behind of general and special relativity, gravity and quantum mechanics deleted an existing paradigm, yet, even today only a tiny percent of any new paradigm is exposed.

We are faced with similar situations at present; what we know, or what we would like to think we know, is at odds (again) with the knowledge base of our 20th century worldview. It’s as if the paradigm shift of 100 years ago (Einstein’s field equation was written in 1909) is just starting to induce real applications in a real world still apparently run and ruled by the mechanical apparatus of the Newtonian clock. Nonexclusion demonstrates an overlay of quantum problems onto a dialog of contemporary concerns. In its broadest and most tangible sense, nonexclusion is simply the demonstration of probability; in its furthest reaches it becomes something more ethereal.

Elemental Crisis

Ideas come and go. Much like the bio-organisms who entertain them, ideas are born, struggle to know their purpose, and then eventually, return into the void. The prism like quality contained within every idea matches the function of life in that what is operating below the surface mostly goes unnoticed. Taken for granted, sometimes ignored, or often mistaken as something else, traces of a cosmological constant can be observed throughout the complexities and conformity of everyday, day-to-day experience. Our best ideas may be those ideas, which are re-evaluated, re-worked, re-considered, re-assimilated and then re-shaped back into a similar, if not identical idea. But the question arises: Is this process somehow responsible for the creation of original though? If so, does this imply that before an idea is born in the mind it already exist, independently, somewhere else, separate from both mind and body?

Apparently, there is no ready-test designed to confirm or deny any such assumption. The data necessary for any proof would be impossible to gather, and the language necessary to argue any theorem would be dependant on subjective opinion of experiential reality. When scrutinized further, the question itself seems to become misappropriated, having no real worth or any fundamental logic worth exploring. Any statement lying outside the system of logic can be reduced to one simple equation:

x=x, x≠x

Commenting on this situation Aristotle once stated, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”  The principle behind this statement, formally known as the law of non-contradiction, developed simultaneously both from and into systems of analysis. Despite apparent conflicts, statements suggesting x and not x are contained within logic by providing the error of logic. Simplified, the following statement demonstrates how logic is contained within an error in logic:

Jill does not like anything Jack does not like. Jack dislikes cake. Jill likes cake.

Logically, as reasoned, this statement always will be unequivocally false. The function of logic is contained within all that is illogical. Similarly, coherence is broken when questions do not include or lie out-side the required variables necessary for proof:

Does Jill like anything Jack likes? Jack likes cake.

When information is incomplete or misaligned, there can be no determination of logic. Here logic cannot relate an error of logic, but demonstrates an illogical illogic function. A simple remedy is an additional variable or modifier:


Does Jill like cake? Jack likes cake and Jill likes everything Jack likes.

or

Does Jill like anything Jack likes? Jack likes cake. Jill likes cake.

Here, restored and unimpeded, logical determinations are now possible. Logical proofs are based on symmetries of varying degree and complexity, which valid or invalid mandate the same conformity. Within this symmetry, logic is contained within all that is logical or illogical. Yet what appears to be a breakdown of logic is either the function of logic contained within all that is illogical, or a disparity of logic in the breakdown of everything that is illogically illogical.

Jill eats cake. Everyone who eats cake is over 9’ tall.
Jill is smaller than Jack. Jack is 6’ 7” tall.

We may reasonable induce that Jill cannot be shorter than Jack and maintain the truth of all cake eaters. The determination of sequential logic is determined to be false when it is devoid of logic or the logic it contains is faulty. The above statement operates within logic, only that it forms the egress from it. Breakdown of logic may also occur when logic fails to determine illogic, even when logical. Here the example might be seen as illogically logical:

The world will end if countries cannot assure safety to their citizens. One countries safety destabilizes another countries ability to provide safety.

Sadly, here, the end of the world remains a logical conclusion. If the higher function of logic is human reason, then such a statement is easily concluded to be illogical. A mechanical function of logic must be trumped by its rational function. Such a statement can be seen as illogically logical. Incompleteness determining a failure of logic, remains outside the system of logic, and is an example of what is illogically illogical.

Some ice skaters wear blue. All ice is either blue or white. Some ice skaters wear white.

Here there is no means of determining logic or illogic. What is illogically illogical is determined, not through logic but by absence of any logical conclusion or reasoning.

If an idea exists, but only after it has been destroyed and then re-created, will an idea, which is identical to it, exist in the same capacity as before it was destroyed?

Here we find the god equation (can a God create a object, which God cannot move?) The logic within a god equation, as it first might seem, is not a function of a proof, but a determination of direction, flow or potentiality of logic. The fate of noncontradiction could now be, at best, described in terms of quantum function. A principle of nonexclusion would contain the properties of noncontradiction, but also would allow proofs to remain in superposition, both true or false, and logical or illogical within the same respect and within the same time. A Law of Nonexclusion can be formulated as:

(p ^ q) ⇒ (p ^ q) ^ ¬ (p ^ q) ^ ¬(¬p ^ ¬ q)
or
(p) ^ ¬ (p) ^ ¬(¬p)

Invariably, principles of nonexclusion will conclude that thought is generated internally within the mind, exists externally as an independent agent in both past and future, and does not exist at all. Depending on our viewpoint, belief or preconception, a thought may be one or none of these things. It may be possible for our minds to see through higher logic or reasoning a consciousness and connectedness to all of these things, simultaneously.

INTRODUCTION

The Russian born Dmitri Mendeleev is one of the many great fathers of science as there are many accredited with this title. This is not to suggest that science is a bastard art, however the gene pool is well contaminated – Aristotle, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton - all are considered, in one fashion or another, fathers of the modern tradition of science. 

In 1864 Mendeleev’s contribution to science, recognized today as a standard of scientific classification, was made possible by a demonstration of his keen insight into the subtle yet distinctive changes exhibited between properties of chemical elements. His simple genius – introducing a second or vertical dimension to what previously was considered a random or linear system – is what allowed the radical annotation of The Periodic Table of Elements.

This ordering (or re-ordering) divided the elements into systems of periods and trends. Each period or trend accounts for a structural or transitional distinction between certain qualities of specific groupings of elements. Quite unexpectedly, these distinctions lent Mendeleev an almost precognitive perception, as the method of his ordering suggested the existence of elemental structures no other philosopher, artist or scientist had before postulated. 

It is likely Dmitri would never have made these predictions, some verified decades after his death, without the advance of this arrangement. For Mendeleev the Periodic Table is more than just a new system of organization, it is a completely new way of seeing the world and its structures about him.