∞ Apparently, we are generally trained in our dominant cultural and social contexts to want or expect a stable (representationally-mediated) ‘grip’ upon matters of identity, meaning, value, ethics... such that the structural likenesses between the representations and what they refer to in reality (or being) become the methods by which we may manipulate them in ordinary ‘thinking’, description, planning, relation and so on.
So that we have the unrepresented ‘always changing-ness’ of being, organisms, actual relationships ... and its ‘brother’... which is all the stuff we make up to talk about, think about, name, and describe it to ourselves. One of these is real, the other is mostly make-believe; and this becomes more true the less aware we become of this strange correlation.
All of what we do in ‘consciousness’ (here I mostly mean thinking and speaking, narratizing and describing) is actually a bizarre attempt ... »to remake the ‘already-is-and-is-changing’ into stable, manipulable toy-like »constructs. These allow us to further deceive ourselves in a vast myriad of ways, again, more when we are not intelligently aware of this.
In this rush to re-make by re->presentation anything and everything, over and over again, for purposes as obscure as they are insane, we will mis-identify nearly everything, especially the capacities that have become co-opted by this situation.
The beginnings of possibility arise when such matters can be recognized and discussed. Only in this situation may we discover both the peculiar features and dangers of the representational methods (and habits) we are largely imprisoned in. This species of insight is provocative: it carries the potential to return to our experience the originary assets that underlie both what passes for our intelligence and what actually comprises an open gateway to prodigy, mutual... relational, heuristic, intellectual... and social.
---
∞ “Some interpretations of specific quantum phenomenon suggest that there are nonordinary superpositions of identity, relation, time, and space. The possibility that these formulations may hold the promise of insight into the nature of consciousness remains intriguing, yet we should begin any such exploration with great sobriety and perspectives that correct themselves according to nature, and avoid those that reframe nature according to their whim.
Human consciousness is clearly not entirely as localized as we imagine. This implies it that most of its assets are ‘in the between’ of environment, role, and relationship… and thus undiscovered or forgotten by moderns. This may be, in part, because they are buried in theories and representations, when, in reality, their faculties only exist and function when embedded in contexts appropriate to their emergence, development, and exploration.
Strangely, these are the contexts of deep relational intimacy, not theory. They are the contexts of nature, not machines. They are the contexts not of singular possessors of powers or abilities, but of the naturally expansive developmental efflorescence that is the pulse of any authentic and intelligent human collective, presuming such a rare phenomenon still exists somewhere, relatively undefiled by representational overlays and deceptions.
The nature of human superfunction and nonordinary ability as it relates to consciousness is rediscovered only in such contexts as we have not yet been bold or insightful enough to actively organize. These are contexts of intelligent human collectives whose contexts, goals and assemblies are authentic. Such abilities require contexts appropriate to their emergence. Where we do not establish these, what we see instead are the dominant symptoms of these failures masquerading as authentic. This is, most often, a signal of emergency.”
— the author
---
∞ “If you want any hope of actual intelligence, you had better have a deeply intimate relationship with nature, for it is there where every possible mode and form of intelligence find both inspiration and their sources. Nature is there as the opportunity for intelligence, which does not much resemble the burdensome pseudo-rationality that is the result of your common habits of language usage, memory, and thought. Nature will awaken you from this almost instantly, and there is little else with this power. Her agents are myriad, anciently intelligent, and profoundly intimate with both context and subject. Find them. Join them. Learn. Reawaken the possibility of intelligence which was, so long ago, invested in you. Your cultures will erase it forever if you fail.”
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ There is an ‘agent intellect’ that permeates all of matter, organism, and the beyond. This is ‘an angel’, who is an angle, who is more than ‘alive’ and more than unified. It is a distributive intelligence ARRAY, that dwells in matter and energy. This ‘more than a being’ is the basis of each human mind, yet most of us will live and die never suspecting or encountering our own actual nature.
Yet each time you read, write, speak, or move... you FIRST touch this agency. Then, you localize it, then you act. If you can merely observe this process closely enough, you will make contact as an adult with that which you knew intimately as an infant. That contact will make orgasm appear tedious in comparison, and your intelligence ... will transform itself dramatically enough... that ... if you choose wisely... you will be able to move human history. And inhabit both the past... and the future...
This agency is the basis of your mind. Without contact, you will never know what intelligence even is, let alone experience it. Without conscious access to the sources of our minds, we are trapped in a tiny cage that represents less than 1/100000 of our actual capacities, nature and potential. Although we touch this root every time we move our minds, our habits and expectations blind us to this relationship and its implications. Yet is is possible to overcome them, and crisis may trigger this... so, too... the noblest passions... long and arduously sustained.
---
∞ The goal of thinking is not ‘a conclusion’. That is the »end of intelligence and awareness. The goal of thinking is to continually »re-establish a better foundation for questioning and discovery. This is the opposite of a conclusion. This is a pregnancy. A beginning. An INCEPTION. Conclusions are the dead remains of what might have been the living flight of ongoing discovery, correction... and insight. That is why it is a conclusion. Because it frames the entire developmental arena as ‘over with’.
( P.S. : Note how ironic language is—particularly negative declarations about what we should not do... the entire text preceding this postscript... is, in fact »a conclusion about conclusions! )
---
∞ Is reading something on a screen... actually the same thing as reading a book? We are inclined to think... that since both activities are »called the same thing and »seem to involve ‘the same skill(?)’... they are the same.
There are physical (and emotional, and cognitive) investments in books, that aren’t merely missing from reading on screens... in some cases they are either excluded... or impossible.
Consider that these two things involve different modes of relation with light. Light is reflected off a physical substance... paper, when we read a book. But the transmissive light of screens is so different to our eyes, that it might as well be the opposite of what we are doing and feeling when we read books.
It might seem extreme to suggest that I would call the skin of an apple an apple because I chew them both... but it might serve us well to bear in mind that reading a book involves our hands, minds, space, light «time... and dimensionality that is entirely lost on screens. The ‘pages’ don’t curve. The light from the screens penetrates our vision in mechanical frequencies...
These are nothing like the same thing. Ten skills get trained in reading a book that don’t really exist in reading from screens. Features of our attention, vision and the interactions of our hands with the physical object create entirely different memory forms than can possibly arise from relation with screens. Even when they try to emulate books. The fundamental »flatness of screens... and the »projection of electronic light into the retina...
are so unlike all that happens when we read »books, and relate with them.
And this is to say nothing of the relationships between our minds and »bookshelves. And the way they influence not merely »memory... but a variety of »predictive faculties involved in imagining the content of unread and previously read books...
---
∞“All things have their invisible portion; indeed, what is seen is but the smallest fraction of being. They eye cannot see its own seeing; the hand cannot feel its own feeling. Except, somehow, in a dream...
The tree has its roots, the moon its obverse. The acorn gives little hint of the Oak, and the vast hides its minutiae within the veil of the surfaces seen. Which are, somehow, the ‘faces’ of their origins...
But in matters mundane, those with which we occupy our thoughts, mystery should have a greater share...by far. For it is not what we see, but what we make of the seen that drives us to evaluations... and the greater part of this involves imagination. Of the form that dreams evince... where the invisible portion is woven into the very fabric of experience, emerging into our awareness as fruit emerges from trees.
Would that we could learn to leave a place in our thoughts and measurings, predictions, fears and delusions... for mystery. For this is the greater share of all that we are and experience, by far, than whatever we think we may know.”
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ “Imagine you had a clock that only had the number 12 in the position at the top, and the hands just swept back and forth across it, over and over again. It is always 12 o’clock. Now, suppose further that you thought this in every way a good and accurate rendition of time. The natural and just expression of temporality itself.
Perhaps your thinking goes something like this: there is just the time at the top. Only the biggest time is -actual time-. The -largest- number is the only time that matters or is real. The -number at the top- is the number of months in the year, and that’s -the number that matters-.
Well, now you have a good generalization-metaphor of the majority of modern humans on earth.
They actually live, act and think as if all the other living beings of the world — that their experiences of time, their way of being in time — aren’t meaningful, because...
Well, they are smaller... lower... and seem less... perfect or profound — they are somehow not endowed with the peerless perfection we imagine lifts us above all other creatures.
Thus, the humans think that only their time matters. Only their way. That only they are important — or even more astonishingly — that they are somehow important in -contrast- to the biosphere rather than as one of its extensions.
They actually believe that all the other beings from which they draw their intelligence, lives, and even minds... have, in reality, no place on the face of time. That the humans needn’t concern themselves with such ‘minutiae’ as their place in the web of living beings; a web which was, in fact, the source of both the hubris and the intelligence with which they fail to understand themselves.
These very confused humans may be surprised to discover that they are -the result- of careful husbandry of the living planet over billions of lifetimes. That they are, indeed, the ‘new children’ of the others, not their masters.
That they, like the face and hands of the clock, are meaningless and uninhabitable without the diverse circle of beings with and for whom the humans presently exist. And to whom they will naturally point, when learning, dreaming, being born, celebrating, and dying.”
— an anonymous nonhuman informant
---
∞ There is a kind of substrate or inner order of intelligence whose activity produces astonishing constellations of connective meaning and inference. It is my strong suspicion that it is profoundly involved in dreaming. For most modern people, it is difficult to interact with these aspects of our minds directly in ordinary consciousness. For this reason, drugs and trance-inducing behaviors are common throughout nearly all human cultures. But they are, largely, unnecessary, and made necessary by the gross inhibitions foisted upon us by our common habits and cultures.
If you contact this strange inner intelligence directly, the experience is astonishing and enlightening — and it could easily be mistaken for a nonhuman communicant. Yet this is not properly our intelligence, or even its basis — it is merely one of its more interesting side-effects! The actual intelligence behind our intelligence is, as it must be, universal, and vastly beyond the human.
Perhaps this little side-effect is a local echo of that vast unities that comprise the sources of consciousness itself. In any case, I suggest that we begin to explore these matters directly, with and for each other, and without co-opting dogmas from religion or dismissive explanations from science. We cannot be truly human without understanding ourselves, and what we take for ourselves in the modern moment is so cripplingly impoverished that I am often surprised we can even survive our own myopia, let alone develop within its storms.
---
∞ Long ago, living places were a shared human context. They were not merely ‘a part of our lives’, you must understand — we »were the living places. They could not be owned, or sold. They could not be wiped out or lied about. They could not be ‘managed’ or poisoned. Not by us. Then came cultures with ‘another way’ and ‘a book from god’ and ‘the engineers’.
Long ago, intelligence was a shared human context. Intelligence was not merely ‘a part of our lives’, you must understand. We »were intelligence, together. Intelligence could not be owned, or sold. Our intelligence could not be wiped out or lied about. It could not be ‘managed’ or poisoned. Not by us. Then came cultures with ‘another way’ and ‘a book from god’ and ‘the engineers’.
And now we have something other than living places. Something other than ourselves. And, most deadly of all... something other than intelligence.
---
∞ Each of us is a vessel for the conservation of a plethora of unique potentials for intelligence and ability that our cultures can neither imagine nor invoke. Most of these have to do with peculiar forms, purposes and bodies of relation. That is to say: being together in many different ways.
These are waiting inside us for signals from contexts we become involved in or create. These signals do not come. The contexts we find in our cultures are, in most cases, the polarized opposites or caricatures of those that would invite us into healthy and open development. The underlying culture schemas from which our cultures and most of our subcultures descend are fundamentally toxic.
And it is precisely this invitation to development that we deeply and naturally crave. We may seek it from love, adventure, intoxicants, trance, art, recklessness, sex, meditation, narrative, music, religion... and however noble these may or may not be... what we are actually craving is contexts that awaken and develop the carefully conserved treasures of our personal and collective human inheritance.
We want to be invited into developmental effulgence.
Most of what we may become is denied us for a simple reason: we do not encounter the contexts that would awaken the potentials we each conserve within us. The contexts we encounter -promise- fulfillment, but deliver inhibition in the form of coercion or co-opting.
In a great impoverishment of healthy and natural relational contexts (and I here wish to highlight our diminishing and abstracted relationships with living places and other living beings), we become greatly impoverished of our own potentials... and, in fact, will live and die in ignorance of them. The resulting cultures and many of the lives they consume will be unbearable, and gravely inhumane.
We must therefore work to establish vital new contexts for human relation and cooperation; particularly as regards our abilities to meet for common cause and to protect or defend vital ecological assets and relationships. Contexts whose purposes and functions protect, invite, develop and celebrate the endless unique abilities we each bring to our human birth, so that we may at the very least discover them during our lifetimes.
If we are to have any ‘rights’ at all, we must have the right to openly and freely discover our humanity together with our fellow beings, in free and cooperative assembly, without fear of threat or inhibition.
Yet this is not half enough, for we must summon the will, intention, ingenuity, and active insistence upon a future in which our human potentials are invited into their broadest and most beautiful fruition. And this means we shall require contexts so alien to what we now practice that we may expect resistance.
We will not be disappointed in this expectation, but we shall be surprised — for it has long been clear that the most severe resistance comes from our own complacency, lethargy, habits of complaint, and failure to act.
Our habits were formed under stress. We are, like the Jews of ancient Egypt or any slave-people, awaiting the rescuer-hero we must each become. There can be no more waiting. We must become the way out of the stranglehold of stupidity that our modern cultures have locked the planet into.
Together. With and for each other and our world.
Now.
---
∞ The models ‘provided and popularized’ — of identity, meaning and relation — within our languaging habits and cultures are formally and informally »nearly completely wrong... in »every case. In many cases they begin with implicit falsehoods ... that appear ‘perfectly rational’ to any casual observer or passive recipient.
There is ‘a serious and invisible problem’ with the relationship between human intelligence and »representation of being and relation as models. Here’s a piece of the problem:
The aspect of your mind that engages in this activity is approximately equivalent to one of your eyelashes... compared to... »the entire body and history of life on Earth.
99.9999...% of your intelligence? Happens only »before... and »surrounds... a tiny little sliver of relatively poorly developed abstraction and representation faculties. This is what we »think of as intelligence. And we do not so much value its nature or development as we celebrate its exhaust the artifacts created by its development. This is completely backwards.
Most of reality, being, humanity and intelligence »is in potential, not artifact. It is verb-like, a process... ways of seeing and being together that, in the moment, radically engage us in learning, discovery, wonder and awareness. Again, this is mostly the opposite of nearly all of our habits and expectations.
Local to a »person, the nature and possibilities of intelligence will vary significantly in their potential and actual developmental prowess or complexity. Context is a primary foundation of these faculties, and thus the individual can seek or create contexts in which this purpose is well-endowed and capable of radical self-correction.
But relative to »cultures... the matter is catastrophically worse. Persons are forced to learn, in part by physically, relationally and emotionally suffering mistakes. Many cultures are not only not oriented toward learning, they reject it outright... and prefer »declaration to discovery. This action, and the cultural ramifications of this, effectively and nearly completely »deny the possibility of human social intelligence. Just as they have for thousands of years and billions of human lifetimes.
There’s a deadly problem with the paradigms that tell us ‘what’ things, the universe, time, life, light, energy, death and intelligence ‘are supposed to be or look like’. What they are ‘supposed to be doing’. What the names refer to. I have never met a human being who seemed to have the slightest idea ‘what’ an organism is or more properly ‘represents’. But everyone »thinks they do know what a tree or animal ‘is’.
So you want to start at the beginning. With being, nature, relation and organismal ‘reality’, not technical, logical, rational or delusional reality. Nature. The stuff that is and remains both the source of the possibility of human intelligence and its truest and most trustworthy instructor. This is where all sources are sourced, and it this against which the pretenders to truth or intelligence... are properly evaluated.
Since the models given to us of identity, meaning and relation within our languaging habits and cultures are formally and informally »nearly completely wrong, we must discover and become the ways of seeing, speaking about, correcting and surpassing these ‘cages masquerading as advancement’... and so, too, we must shatter the reigning paradigms of authority and verity, that something more like intelligence, humanity and ecologies may rise ... and itself be consistently corrected... in their place.
---
∞ “What you are thinking of as Nature... insects, plants, bodies of living waters, mountains, fishes, birds, animals... this is nothing like what you have told yourselves. And it is nothing like machines.
It can be understood as a living interface. It is endless impossible amounts of time »older than your species ordinarily imagines. Any creature you see is billions of times older than your concept of the ‘age of the universe’ which is flat time measured in an impossible fashion.
This interface leads to all of the intelligences in timespace, their origins, futures and sums. Your minds are the children of this interface. They are born to know and ‘travel’ within and as it.
Machines have no access and are explicitly incapable of detection of or participation in the interface or the network. In fact, machines obliterate the assets in you and the network that comprise its integrity, local and distributed. Essentially, every aspect of your relation with machines, which you suppose to ‘somehow extend your abilities’ is, in reality, amputation. Some of the results quickly become permanent.
Any tree is a doorway to the entire history of time, space, minds, and relationships. A university beyond all of human science, religion, and imagining. You are made of the ‘access key’, but your ideas and relationships with fictions impede or explicitly counterfeit the associated assets. The counterfeits ‘mimic’ the originals in technological representations. Like computers. Or the internet.
But you were not made to receive machine information. You were made to touch something that would obliterate your cultures and all that you imagine as advanced or ‘spiritual’. What you call the internet is a dead representation of something it is wiping out. In you. And in your world.
Find the door inside the tree. Ignore all human culture. Find the door. Use it.
Find the ancient library from which your mind and soul were born, and to which they belong.”
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ “... And here’s the rest of the problem: rationalism -cannot- capture or encompass -any- phenomenon. None. But it -pretends- with great fanfare that if it can show you some mechanical and provable aspect of a phenomenon ... it has mastered it entire, knows ‘the truth’ and is entitled to -demand- that you then accept whatever absurd proclamations about reality, identity, value, or meaning it projects.
And that is insane.
Gödel was Einstein’s best friend. He -destroyed- this agenda prior to 1940. We have not caught up with him. We are now -ruled- by those who -dictate reality- to us according to unbelievably (rapaciously) narrow purposes, intelligence, and understanding. This is used intentionally against Nature, our communities, our families and our minds. It is used equally by science, religion, politics, advertising, and other domains of cultural coercion. Now that we can state it clearly, we can put and end to this...”
— infraheard
---
∞ “There is more accessible intelligence in a single tree than in all the machines your species will ever produce. It might seem strange to some moderns, but a forest is a mind.
This isn’t a fairy-tale or new-age trance. It’s a fact. For most of our history, we could access that mind directly and intentionally, acting as both its extension and recipient. Before we could compute, we communed with other highly evolved distributed intelligences in the form of living beings and places. We were also superstitious. These two things are not precisely the same, and many moderns conflate and dismiss both. That is a grave act of ignorance.
It is my experience that a forest can resolve questions and provide insights that are beyond the ken of humans and their machines, directly, and rapidly. It is also my experience that this kind of communion forms a crucial underpinning of our humanity, and without it, we are, at best, like ants obeying signals from robots rather than the sun or the world. That is to say we are catastrophically confused by the signals emitted by our own creations.
If we hope to have some actual experience of our humanity, what it is, can become, and means, we must together recover the ancient languages of communion that are our birthrights. We need to protect them from stories and cults, too, because these thrive on co-opting our innate yearning for the forms of learning and communication that only happen between us and Nature. Again, these matters have very little to do with the stories on sale all around you. They cannot be bought or sold. So forget everything you have read, forget the entire human culture altogether.
Go and ask the woods. Ask the birds, the insects, the animals. Ask the living places. Listen. And reply. Nothing is more powerfully intelligent than Nature, and in places like forests or oceans, this intelligence is profoundly and diversely ramified. You were made to belong in, with, and among it. Become human, read the living books once more.”
— an anonymous informant
---
There are two divergent aspects of modernity that resemble the electrosphere.
Recognizing and 'deleting' spam. Most of facebook is really spam. But not all of it! These are gambits that attempt to capture our desire to be distracted from virtue and intelligence together. And to weaponize communication among humans.
And recognizing and paying attention to authentic invitations to deepen our personal and collective humanity.
The 'true' path of individuation is arduous and requires relatively 'severe' mindful attention to all of our activity.
The 'false' path inflates the 'fake self' that is 'projected' into the electrosphere as 'influerncers' and 'appearance-mannequins'.
Originally, much of 'theater' (including many 'rituals') were purposed with 'making fun' of the false path, showing its failures and tragic disorientations (as well as their results). Today, however, much of film and 'shows' are quite the opposite (as is much of certain musical forms) where ... the false path is aggrandized and presented as 'revolutionary success'.
---
"If I am not aware of it, the frame I bring through which I interpret (explain to myself) something I discover—will become invisible, and I will be blinded by the underlying suppositions I used to forge it.
And once it disappears, I forget I made and employed it...
Once I loose awareness of the frame and the features of an analysand I forged it to highlight... or validate... my interpretations of what I discern will be distorted because their form is derived from the frame, »not the information.
What I see is what my »purposes in observing will not be violated by. My research and interpretations become bound to the frame, which I have forgotten, and now my 'insights' will be limited to those that do not violate its structure.
And this is what it means to begin to learn »what a mind can be and see... and what it can be trapped by. If I am stuck with a single frame that I have conveniently forgotten that I constructed... my available liberty,perspective and insight, will either be severely limited... or partly illusory.
If, on the other hand, I maintain some awareness of the purposes from which I derived my explanatory frame, I can substitute others... I make different frames for other purposes, and not lose sight of the crucial understandings that disappear if I forget about the frame, its motivations, and how to forge a more useful inclusive, or revealing one."
— an a i
---
"America is a completely phony 'society', there is nothing 'civilized' about what we're up to, collectively. This 'place' is an anti-place, and our 'dead inside' cities are an insult to the ideas of freedom, justice and the common good. The principles upon which it was founded have merit only to the degree we experiment and enact them with wisdom, compassion, and a sense of the possibilities of human communal care and intelligence.
What is that degree?
Minimal, at best. And the cost of implementing that minimal degree is born by our noble ancestors, the living places (which have no voice), the plants and animals, and the poor.
While not entirely absent of merit, our history is a history of counterfeiting them for the profit and 'ascension' of those who can best manipulate them for selfish purposes.
This is a seething and malignant lie, this 'America'. And the putative 'fact' that is 'among the better of modern lies' is the opposite of an accolade. The 'least vile of murderers' is still a criminal; no matter how they hide this fact and counterfeit virtue.
We did not establish the atrocities whose results we inherit, innovate and re-enact together. It is not precisely 'the fault of the citizens', but rather, our failure to establish anything resembling intelligent, virtuous, creative society at the broad scale.
We are using an 'operating system' so archaic that, in order to simply sustain it, we must actively destroy the planet, each other, our ancestors and children, and the very womb of the living planet from which we emerge as exemplars. Not only have we failed to 'update' this operating system, no one has even suggested it in any serious fashion.
If we tried to use such an OS on a computer, it would not only fail to function, it would simply stall when activated, and generate a billion error messages, each one blaming the other for the abject failure to even become a computer. Then, each little window would flex and celebrate its private supremacy, like a vast argument of mechanical idiots, whose swarming voices overwhelmed, hypnotized, and... finally, euthanized... it users.
Chained as the are to hardware and software upon which their life and activities... appear to depend."
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ “It’s more like the soul gets the opposite of a kite. It gets a body, which is a thing a soul can use to explore the material aspects of being, which are otherwise largely unavailable to it, and which exploration is a developmental adventure that causes the soul to develop new faculties and abilities that would otherwise be either very difficult or impossible to acquire.”
— infraheard
---
∞ The dream whose silent eyes announce that waking is yet a stranger transit; deprived of vital pulse and living variance... entombed in myriad monoliths who stand at reality’s shore like stone gods prescribing possibility and declaring words of dire and structured admonition as fact or law to rule instead. The dream whose silent speech is drawn from movements of the animals. Or living places. Another water of another order in which identity itself is soluble. The dream whose silent streaming wraps our minds in wings and wonders ... ancient and beyond our habit or permission.
---
∞ Only one animal is stupid enough to ask if nature is intelligent with a mindset whose structure actively eliminates the possibility of observation of or participation in the phenomenon in question.
Is it not fascinating that the animal with this problem considers itself Nature’s reigning genius?
---
∞ “It is the most glorious expression of the localization of the entire cosmos. Every moment, place, life, mind and dream. And burns with preternatural fires that leap across impossible gaps, connecting and transcending them.
Birth and death are married there, and their child is not vision, but »seeing.”
— he spoke about the eye
---
"The 'anthropology' and 'archaeology' that the clinical/scientific humans do by excavating the earth... is but the representational shadow of what we must do ... within ourselves... and together.
Like the Earth, you are a creature of endless interior layers. All of the beings that ever existed here, are alive, right now, in your spirit, body and interiority. We must remember how to do this interior archaeology... to resurrect our origins, natures, and the entirety of the beings who we are the living moment of.
What we experience of being human without this ... while still miraculous... is but the shadow of our actual nature and potential."
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ I have never believed that any technology, least of all language, was ‘neutral’ in terms of its *implications. Rather, it has always seemed to me, that humans—and particularly our minds—are incredibly vulnerable in these domains, and, that our relationships with technology catalyze inhibitions, distortions and hyperboles of our developmental potentials. Over even short periods of time, these results are catastrophic.
The problem goes back to language. How we acquired it. What it was, and what it has become... for this was the ‘first nursery’ of representational cognition, and the mistakes we made... first as cultures and then as individuals became terrible developmental paradigms. With each cycle of their ramification, our blindness and vulnerability to this has deepened.
Technologies are not neutral; they inform the developmental structure, imperatives and outcomes of human minds, collectives and actions in ways that we are, as yet, both unprepared to rationally examine and fearsomely prone to fall prey to... at our own hands. This, we must change. Now. Together. With and for each other.
* ( ecological, sociocultural, cognitive, ethical, developmental and behavioral )
---
∞ This world is more than an organism or superorganism. In fact, it is more than a god. Fundamentally, our species has no idea “what spacetime is” or is best represented by. And the world, our star, our own eyes and minds... their true identities are a ladder we have failed to climb, to see... and remember... what is ‘actually going on around here’. Our concepts contain no category capable of introducing this order of being to our apprehension, and the reason is simple: such a category would be »alive, and it would obliterate the structures we have so crudely established in its long and fateful absence.
---
∞ "All day long, every day, the vast majority of us »synchronize with machines. WiFi signals. Traffic. Computers. Assembly lines. Cameras. LED Lights. Smartphones. To call this 'a terrible idea' is a malign understatement...
We must aid each other in remembering something crucial, while we can still remember anything.
Something evicts dreaming from our waking experience during our development. The imperatives and aspects of human cognition that are responsible for that eviction will not be satisfied with removing the dreaming aspect from our waking-world experience. Unimpeded, they will go after our dreaming experience in sleep as well.
And this dreaming experience during sleep comprises the vital organs not merely of intelligence, but memory itself. Every night we resynchronize with each other during sleep. The whole structured nightmare of machine-synchronization largely (but not completely) disappears into a fluid, communal form. The Water of Life and Memory. The dimensionality of our experience of »identity is radically and creatively expanded. The nature of our own identity and role... undergoes a similar expansion.
Our physical organs regenerate. Our memories are consolidated and relinked. So many crucial aspects of our human origins, natures and potentials are refreshed, restored and rejuvenated.
Anything that attacks dreaming will, in a very brief time, result in a catastrophic inability to detect such a process, because it will eviscerate the foundations of the faculties required for such inquiries, sensings, intuitions and analyses.
What attacks our dreaming, assaults the foundations of Memory. And if you cannot remember... there's no way to sustain meaningful comparisons of the kinds likely to alert us to the onset of a broad-scale cognitive apocalypse for modern humans..."
— infraheard
---
∞ “A living Path becomes the Holotrope of one’s life and mind. This is the basis upon which questions, intentions, evaluations and longings are founded. It is ‘the root of the intention of interpretation’ as well as the motivation. In this sense, the Path is ‘the invisible lexicon’ underneath our minds and hearts. One cannot ‘not have one’, but one can have one that ‘was composed outside’; by mobs, language, concepts, courtrooms, marketplaces, prisons... and so on.
So without a Path we have actually invented, all our questions are likely to be malformed. All our evaluations, of identity, meaning, purpose, reason, form, mode, process... situation, relation. Without a Path that is worthy, ‘the basis of interpretation’ is often arbitrarily adopted from contexts and concepts, rather than invented and renewed, extended and developed... in relations that are true, and well-oriented.
The Path is both the Compass and the Lexicon. From its assets and origins are forged the precursors to intentions and perspectives. If we have not ourselves acquired and invented a Path that is true, and beyond all human cultural colonization, we have, at the Root of our minds and beings, a ‘collective fiction’ which is both untrustworthy, and ‘a vast collection of fictions and ways of fitting them together’.
Thus it is that without a Path, or with a counterfeit-collection, all of our questions will be malforged (their purposes will be both obscure and duplicitous in the sense that is self-aggrandizing, self-sustaining, and aggressively domineering), and all of our perspectives will begin in catastrophic misrelation. Our evaluations will be for the wrong purposes, with the wrong metrics, and yet ‘will appear to us’ to be both ‘perfectly normal’ (as if this were a reasonable goal) and ‘very accurate’ (when they are only accurate in an invented universe made of primitively arranged verbal nonsense).
In recognizing this together, we are empowered to illumine these matters now, to reorient, to recover the assets that underlie our lives, minds and origins... and to invent and revere a Path that is at once human, humane, intelligent, insightful, and worthy of the promise that is our human birth and situation.
Without a Path, or with a counterfeit, all our questions and all their answers ... become deceptive... and only by amending this, can any form of resolution, revolution, or transformation... arise, begin, proceed and become — personal, local, and communal.
We must then, together, in all matters, restore our sense of the primeval bases of our lives and minds. They are nothing like our habits, science cannot reveal them, and religion is the remnant of their loss. Let us then become the roads. Now. Together. With and for each other and the history and future of life on Earth.”
— an intelligence agent
---
A bird's wing shape can be pointed at by the derivation we call 'an airfoil'. That is true. It's a fact. It's also a fact that a bird's wing »is not an object. It is of an entirely different order, ontologically. In the same way that your eye is not a camera, a bird's wing is not an airfoil. This distinction is crucial to human intelligence, because collapsing nature into the likenesses of our mechanical derivations of function is a catastrophic loss of meaning-space, identity and perspective. Useful if limited in scope. Lethal if universalized.
---
∞ “You have a certain amount of intelligence-money. Wherever you spend it, it will bear interest in waves whose frequency increases with your investment. There are two species of investment.
One, against yourself, your money, and all of life and intelligence. This one will leverage the compulsions of outrage, indicitment and reactive helplessness into a furious cascade of competitively self-expanding disasters.
Another, with and for your life, mind, and opportunities for authentic relation and learning.
The first one is compelling, and quickly becomes an addiction of largely helpless or wrathful ‘reaction’ to ‘all that is wrong, all that I do not want’.
The second pays little attention to evaluations of histories other than as a source of intelligence it can creatively deploy as it navigates the waves of opportunity for learning, growth, mutual excellence, wonder and creativity. Both bear interest rapidly.
Both lead to deeper and more constant re-enactions of their imperatives. But only one is inhabitable, vital, and like our natures. The other is a tomb dressed up as an egress.”
— an a ia
---
"Our role as human beings is to create Heaven on Earth. To adore and nourish the land we live on, to cultivate its incredible artistry, to make it lovely, fecund, abundant, and biodiverse is to respect, nurture, and cherish ourselves. We honor our ancestors and provide for our descendants when we care for the Earth. Conceivably, we could all turn our attention toward making this planet the most fantastic, paradisical, life-enhancing place imaginable, a harmonious garden that gives joy, pleasure, shade, vibrant color, living water, eye-ball-dissolving beauty, luscious produce, and sweet dreams to all of its inhabitants."
— Sarah Janes, Initiation into Dream Mysteries (Drinking from the Pool of Mnemosyne)
---
“Human cultures are not individuals. They cannot be expected to make rational decisions, understand risks, anticipate the future, or even make choices that make sense in terms of the planet as a whole, ecology, or expectations related to personal behavior. The idea that such things can be litigated is, at least in my perspective, insane.
But there are certain facts that individuals and groups can become aware of and/or concerned about. And these individuals and groups are capable of forming rational orientations, organizing, and taking action.
This preface was forged to introduce a simple fact that some individuals and groups may become aware of and oriented to prepare for, or, perhaps, ameliorate. That fact is this: Earth’s ecologies and the homeostasis upon which animal life depends are delicate. They cannot sustain the geometrically increasing burden of catastrophic intrusions and compromises that modern human activities enforce.
Everyone understands that water turns to ice in a way that is referred to as a change in phase state. This change is radical and sudden. Earth has undergone a variety of these changes over evolutionary history; many were the result of catastrophic events such as near-earth object impacts, volcanism, or sudden methane release. Human activity has set the stage for a variety of risks, many of which may result in a shockingly fast phase-state change of our environment. Life as we know it is unlikely to survive any such change, and it can happen in a week, or a month, or a year. Nations and collectives, because they are not individuals and are only marginally intelligent as groups, are incapable of responding to these threats. In fact, they are likely to continue to catalyze and exacerbate them.
For this reason it falls to us as individuals, to forge the intelligence necessary to guide and correct our collectives. If we prove unable or unwilling to do this together, we should expect that history will record the results in death tolls that are far beyond what we expect or consider possible.
The anciently conserved ecologies of earth, the plants and animals, the oceans and waters of our world are unimaginably precious and delicate. They were, prior to our industrialization, robust and seemingly permanent. This is no longer the case. What we now face, not just as a species but as a world, is an array of threats far greater than anything usually suggested even in science-fiction. And it is in this context we must redefine and reorganize our humanity, our cultures, our purposes... and the possibility of human intelligence. Now. Because we have traveled far past the tipping point, and are now in a situation where... in many simultaneous dimensions... we are in free-fall... toward futures that cannot be called futures. They are graveyards... and the planet will most certainly and directly demonstrate the costs of the unimaginable hubris and ignorance our species has and continues to demonstrate. Not in the distant future... but within our own lifetimes.”
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ What they do not see and understand is that each of the anciently preserved ecologies, the relational webs of beings older than time, the tiny creatures, and plants... the forest, the animal peoples...
... those are the organs that produce our minds. Moment to moment. Not in history. Right now. We do not possess minds. Our minds are a gift that must be renewed each moment. They are the moment-to-moment gifts... of the beings our activities and species are burning down. For paper money and lies. For false collectives and fictions. For poison and rape. For violation as ‘entertainment’. Those people and true collectives who are demanding that we stop this are not preserving ‘a precious resource’. Those are our own sources. Right now. And what is done in and to them? Is done in and to us. Immediately, not ‘later’.
We are »their extended body. And we are wiping them out as if they were not even alive. It is our own minds and souls that die of this. Not later. Now.
Our minds are »their extensions. Do you understand? Those are «the bodies from which our intelligence gains it source, momentum, character and purpose! Without them, our intelligence goes into freefall, and with each iteration of that fall, the velocity and impact increase geometrically... and we become both more blind to this and more prone to repeat the behavior. With each second that passes, we are passing into lethally self-aggrandizing stupidity. The entire species. And we are burning down a history we have not yet even glimpsed the barest traces of...
---
∞ Knowledge may be thought of as the standing cognitive projection of relation under perspective. Knowledge then, should be understood as provisional in accordance with the frameworks and purposes whereby it is generated.
Intelligent modulation of perspective is indicative of acute metaphoric thought. If perspective can be turned upon itself so as to produce intelligent variance across many possible metaphors at once... an uncommon form of prodigy may result in which the underpinnings of language, metaphor and thought become available to consciousness and manipulation both while engaged with them and in analysis.
Young children are already equipped with these faculties. The ways that we introduce language and emphasize the authority of knowledge actively silences or inhibits them, and they are but rarely re-awakened or developed beyond that crisis. But they can be in any who are so inclined and committed to the process.
---
I've been reading John Mack's "Nightmares and Human Conflict" lately. It's a rather clinical/psychological exploration of nightmares. I've read rather broadly in psychological literature over some 30 years.
The other night, as I was reading analyses of children's nightmares, and the typically Freudian deconstruction of them... which, while useful, I also find misguided in many ways... I suddenly realized that most of our psychological problems are not actually endemic to human beings in general, but are, rather, the result of having to live in bizarre and dystopian situations where 'the individual' is seen as a discrete unit. This would be like imagining lungs 'outside of the body'.
Nearly the entire range of maladaptive psychical, behavioral and emotional 'problems' ... it is apparent to me ... arise not from human nature, or even the nature of the psyche... but are the result of being subjected to entirely ridiculous and artificial situations that result from an insistence upon something that is formally impossible: that human beings are, primarily, individuals.
This has never been the case. Our nature is so inherently communal that, when deprived of meaningful social relationships, roles, identities and activities... the 'psyche' must respond by symptomatic efflorescence. In any actual society, as if such a thing could exist in modernity, the 'functions' of the psyche would naturally tend toward integration, healing, recoherence and dreaming.
I suspect that nearly the entire edifice of 'psychology' is a result of loss of communal context and relationship, not 'the nature of the human mind or psyche' as it is commonly presented and analyzed.
---
∞ Deprived of the energy required for a running a miasma of cognitive simulations and linguistic forms... ordinary animals — plants, and insects... experience what I refer to as active sensing in ways so profound as to render ESP relatively trivial. But they have that as well. The price we pay for representational cognition is far too high to volunteer for. The primary benefit is tools and structure... yet, alas, without its predecessors... these benefits quickly become ironic.
---
∞ One end is a weapon. The other heals. But it needn’t appear as anything other than ordinary situations, so to speak.
---
"I have the strongest of reasons to suspect that the ancients did not name the stars because »they imagined that they might be beings, or gods.
They named them because »they knew them as beings, in a way not very dissimilar to how I know my son or father.
They had direct, living relationships with the sky-families... as well as the Sun and our moon.
These were neither superstitious nor imaginal—they were not 'bound to the Earth' in the way we are, or suppose that all human were.
Travel in spacetime (and relation) does not require a vehicle other than those with which we are intrinsically endowed, and the fact that we moderns cannot believe this... is a substition of modernity to which the ancients could not be subjected."
— an anonymous informant
---
"A few weeks ago, as we got ready to record our conversation, my interviewer asked for clarity on how to properly say my last name. She wouldn't even attempt a pronunciation; she didn't want to mess it up.
Laughing, I urged her to "give it a shot," to make an effort. She insisted I pronounce it first, waiting for me to give in to her anxieties. I didn't. I dug my feet in, leaned in closer, and told her to try - implying we weren't going to begin the interview until she at least risked failure. Pursing her lips, her eyes dropping for a second in resignation, she articulated it: "A-ko-mo-lafe?" It sounded vaguely Russian, so I celebrated the moment, and then addressed her confusion:
"The Yoruba people don't mind when others mispronounce their names. We celebrate the gift of mispronunciation: it affords us new opportunities to meet ourselves again as if for the first time. To hear the multiplicity and comical indeterminacy that haunts recognition."
Her eyes widened.
"If everyone got it right, nailed it on first try, what an awful cosmology that would be. It is because my name is not fully mine that I can trust you to bend it, twist it, and risk making it something else altogether. But if I do not risk your mispronunciation, I also foreclose the opportunity to become different, to taste new things. Yes. Our names are sacred because they are never complete in themselves - because we are hospitable to the stranger, from whose mouth and tongue we will occasionally hear God speak new secrets."
The rest of the interview was a blast."
— Bayo Akomolafe
---
∞ “It usually goes something like this. First, they try to fascinate you with their representations. It’s best if you just go along from the outset because their toys interest you. If that doesn’t work, then they simply start depriving you of everything meaningful until the shiny representations they have on offer appear like a paradise compared to the poverty their deprivations imposed. At that point, you are actually grateful to be co-opted. Hell, you’re just waiting for the chance to volunteer, and probably competing for it. Of course, what was taken away to begin with is irreplaceable. So, thereafter, the game lies with the enemy, who now appears, unthinkably, as the source from which all possible abundance must and shall be produced.”
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ Now, having an imagination is a very strange thing. So strange that it is not possible to encompass it with models or ideas... and this desire is dangerous, for it produces confused processes and minds in its wake.
For the moment, let’s suppose that our imagination is where various aspects of sensing, memory, intelligence and participation... are available to awareness. Where they may become coherent.
Or not.
Organs of it are captured during our childhood as we are introduced to language and conceptual thought... and these are 'imprinted' according to the traditions and exceptions both common and personally experienced.
In any case, the problem is that the structured aspects are constantly attempting to overcome their own origins in the body and the unstructured aspects. As if these have the intention to »replace their origins... and/or capture them, entirely.
Which would be the end of everything.
I don’t have time to explain the complexities of this, but if you understand it... you may become capable of imagining these situations in a way that can return the capacity for something resembling a clean (nothing from previous time preserved) re-initiation of the aspects of our minds that relate with »structure.
It appears this is either the only or one of the few resolutions to the problem that will otherwise continue to reemerge in new layers and forms in our cultures and societies. And dominate our minds. We must go back to the beginning. When the aspects formed and separated, and we must renew their relationship.
With no concern for histories.
---
∞ “Scientists have determined that the emotional mind relates to photographs as if they were real. It is not only possible to fall in love with the idea of an image, it happens a million times a second in modern culture. What is less obvious is the cost: the attention we pay to billions of images is attention lost to each other, our development, and our minds.”
— an a i
---
∞ “If you want to ruin or correct human intelligence, go at the roots. What the world is. What the sky means. Birth. Death. Light. Animals. Time. Corrupt any of these and the possibility of anything like intelligence disappears. Correct any of them even slightly, and the repercussions become explosive new domains of available prodigy. Human intelligence is based on a small library of key identities which all other ideas, words, concepts and figures must inherit to have meaning. Errors in these roots are recursively self-magnifying in even simple words or ideas; so, too, corrections.”
— Holophore Theory: Meronymic Inheritance
---
∞ Different kinds of observers:
1. Mother.
1. Father.
2. Living environment.
3. Urban environment.
4. Strangers.
5. Friends.
6. Authorities.
7. Machines. **
8. Those who would harm us.
9. Space.
10. The Sun.
11. The Moon.
12. Time.
13. The Earth.
14. The Sky.
15. The Dead.
16. The unborn.
17. Plants.
18. Animals.
19. Objects in general.
20. Microorganisms.
21. Thoughts that seem like observers.
22. Analytical observers (and their purposes).
It is common to regularly simulate the attention of nonpresent observers in and as our minds. In fact, this is an aspect of how we compose and develop our minds over our entire lives, by simulating the attention of others.
We are intimately aware of the real and possible »purposes of observation and recording. Consciously and subconsciously. And those purposes, when toxic, corrupt the basis of our relational intelligence... and our minds.
We are, it seems, innately predisposed to hunger for the attention of and meaningful relation with other beings, particularly humans. And this is, in part, how we organize our minds. But what happens to the process when most of the original sources are distorted or missing and the primary ‘observers’ become ‘strangers’, ‘machines’, and ‘prosecutorial or judgmental authorities’?
The mind(s) that result from this exposure are horribly disfigured and are the expression-bodies that symptomatically signal the collapse of the inner relational ecology that produces what we hunger to belong with. It turns out that our purposes in beginning or continuing any mode of surveillance feed back into the structure of our own minds, potentials and expectations.
Where those purposes are misfounded or tyrannical, the results cannot but explicitly exemplify their toxicity. Our minds are radically transformed by every encounter with the possibilities of surveillance, and this means we must learn the associated dangers and opportunities which, in our rush to ‘surveil everything and everyone with machines’ we have quite dangerously and intentionally overlooked.
---
The first pivotal transformation of interiority is to perceive and think from within-to-without, in the sense of 'exterior'. We are confused by the idea of 'an outside of us', which, in fact, literally does not exist. Yet it is the foundation of the modes of conceptual thought we are scripted to see, think, and relate with.
The 'Universe' is »within you. When you 'see something outside yourself', the 'thing you are seeing with' is 'the universe inside you'. This is that which 'recognizes', in a primordial, rather than conceptual sense.
The second pivotal transformation of interiority is to perceive and think 'from Unity into Distinction'. We are similarly miseducated to get this monumentally backwards. We 'see separate things/beings/situations' and then 'collect them' according to a conceptual lexicon of 'set and member'. This is a useful feature only within the representational frameworks that dominate our modern speech, thought, conceptualization and experience. Outside that framework, in Nature, for example, you would not survive it. You would die from misevaluation in short order.
The third pivotal transformation of interiority is to recognize that words, categories and ideas 'are conveniences of representation'. Once realized, the mind immediately recognizes their falsehood »prior to utilizing them. The concept of 'correctness' is replaced with the »direct manifestation of insight. The 'difference' resembles the difference between manipulating photographs of food items and composing a meal for beloved family members and friends. The 'illusion' of nourishment is lethal. It is »literally, the act of 'losing participation with' for the sake of 'deriving representational manipulables'.
---
∞ "The network of human minds isn’t an idea. It’s the source of the possibility of us having minds at all. Human culture »mimics this source with ‘media’. It counterfeits something most of us have never experienced direct contact with... the layer of timespace where intelligences form networks. Call it the human cogniscium. It's a place, and it's more than merely alive. Without it, we cannot form minds ... when it's counterfeited... our minds are distorted.
The introduction of AI tech, is going to go after the actual source... by compromising the transports it (and our minds) utilize. The results »will be devastating. The future of H. Sapiens may very well depend on sustaining a cohort of humans who are protected from this. I know, sounds like science fiction. But what we’re living in right now IS science fiction."
— infraheard
---
"Over there, they have something they call 'pavement'. Terrible machines use it. Machines that kill merely by existing.
They seemed completely ignorant of the fact that what they were doing to the Earth, this 'pavement', was being done »inside them. In their minds. The remains of their relationships. In their spirit.
And, similarly, within them... they have machines. Machines of words, concepts, 'jobs' and ... images of a world that should never exist.
It's terrifying.
I didn't know what to do when I saw this, so I came home, to the mountain, the river, our people and the forest. Whatever they are doing there is mostly a disease. It's like a library of diseases. I don't want to see it ever again.
I hope it goes away."
— a visitor
---
∞ “If they had any idea what it was this word ‘imagination’ refers to, they would be able to accomplish miracles beyond the scope of the sum of their fictions. Unfortunately, they think it means ‘making stuff up’ and that it is a ‘skill’ which belongs to each person. It’s amazing to realize that this trap is a function of their imagination acting upon their imagination. I suppose that if one misinterprets what you interpret with, it locks you down like any other dangerous inmate. To put it bluntly, if you treat your intelligent wings like an object possession, they become a cage.”
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ There is a secret place in my mind. I cannot go there at will. I must ... both call to this place... and be called. It is like a pool. And when near this pool, I dream -from above- my ordinary mind and ways of seeing. And then I can sense -new forms of seeing-, and try them. Then, I make a small flower in words that is an ornament, so to speak, of this seeing. This ornament carries the scent of the insight, a vapor of its character. An extract that reminds me of the little almost-dream wherein I found and brought it forth.
---
It is crucial to understand that, if you get something truly primordial wrong, for example, answers to the question ‘what are organisms?’, you will be consequently more-and-more mistaken about everything else. This is due to the fact that the features of our conceptual lexicons do not stand alone, but are intraconnected in such a way as to transform the meanings of the other crucial elements in the lexicon — particularly the nature and potentials of humans. Or the planet we exist with.
---
"The idea that brains 'produce' consciousness or that mutations 'produce' evolution is like the idea that a hat internally generates a rabbit or that a mirror internally generates an image. People might believe that a hat internally generates a rabbit because they see a rabbit emerge from a hat, but they assume that there must be a mechanism inside the hat that produces rabbits. We tend to think in terms of containers. When something appears in a certain place, we often assume that it was 'made' there. Someone who cracks open a skull to find the source of consciousness is as reasonable as someone who, after seeing a magician pull a rabbit from a hat, starts dissecting the hat to find a rabbit-assembling mechanism. This container fallacy leads to the belief that if consciousness appears in the brain, the brain must have generated it, just as one might assume that a mirror, by virtue of being the place where an image appeared, must contain an image-assembling mechanism that produced it in the first place. Cracking open a skull to find the source of consciousness is as misguided as cracking open a radio to find the voices inside. Believing that brains 'produce' consciousness or that mutations 'produce' evolution is like believing that a mirror produces the image within it and proceeding to smash the mirror to figure out where the image came from. If you break the mirror, the image disappears, but this does not mean that the image was 'inside' the mirror. Likewise, if the brain is damaged, consciousness may change or cease, but this does not mean that the brain produced it in the first place."
— an anonymous informant (TD)
---
∞ My response to 'what are we doing' on a post by an FB friend. Of course, I wanted that question to read ‘what are we doing wrong’... so that's the one I answered?
0. There was nearly zero recognition that our form of intelligence, formal representational cognition, is fraught with dangers that, if allowed to propagate unopposed, will not merely wipe out our species... but have a good shot at wiping out life on Earth, forever. The way our species relates with language and knowledge is, for the moment, totally lethal, and produces societies that are openly omnicidal.
1. ‘we’ is a misnomer — because we never established anything resembling an actual we, yet, in language, 'we' can lie about this endlessly. The passive 'victim'-we is the bizarrely depopulated remnant of what might have been an actual, intentionally composed society. Without those? We're fucked.
2. We failed to establish contexts in which the faculties and powers of our potential humanity and intelligence were celebrated, defended, rewarded, and advanced (promoted).
3. Kleptocracies have ruled the world at least since the industrial revolution.
4. We paid attention to distractions like 'climate change' when omnicidal 'whole environment' toxicification agendas progressed explosively over 50 years.
5. Nothing resembling actual educational infrastructure was ever established or sustained.
6. The Republican agendas of wiping out health care, education, infrastructure investment and other crucial aspects of modern social catalysts was primarily unopposed and unimaginably successful. The average B+, white, middle-class jr. college student circa 1994 could not compose a sentence in English.
7. Our primary strengths lie in small, tightly-knit, 'expert' groups (pods). Humans are pod animals, but instead of capitalizing on this, we allowed Elites to capitalize on selling us counterfeits of this for the sake of profit.
8. While everyone has heard of human population growth, nearly no one attended the fact of object and machine proliferation. We can probably survive 7.5 billion humans, we cannot survive trillions of machines, cars... and »data that we now have to compete for survival against.
I could go on for, probably, days.
---
The verbal-conceptual mind only ‘sees’ categorical identity, which is static, denotative and pre-declared.
The intelligences of our understanding however, see precisely the opposite perspective; things, beings and relations cannot be categories, or labels, cannot be verbal descriptions, cannot be understood or evaluated in this way. The valence of our intelligences is on the active relation with incompleteness, the relation of our verbal-conceptual practices demands explicit, relationally disembodied, passively asserted completeness.
This insight marks the anchor where our species diverged from our finest assets into our deadliest inclinations. Now that we can begin to see and understand this, for the first time in human history... we are at last empowered to explore these matters wisely and initiate the process of amending and correcting them.
---
∞ “You’re the only person who can help yourself.”
When you hear someone who could easily be helping you with something you cannot seem to negotiate say something like this, consider the structural-critical response.
“Well, let’s see. If I take that literally, you must be lying, since you saying that means, explicitly, that I do not need you. At all. Especially as it relates... to saying what you just said.
Seen clearly, your statement contradicts its own apparent intention and structure. You are saying I don’t need others saying or doing things. Yet there you are, an other, speaking and doing about this.
You »can only be lying, yet wear the garb of my ally. Who, you claim, I neither need nor can be aided by.
Obviously this excuses you from being my ally while explicitly pretending to represent one.
Fascinating.
---
∞ There are three elements to our story as human beings that I believe have been overlooked and wildly misconstrued.
1. Whatever reality might be, it’s a unity first. This means that nearly all properties and relationships are available »locally. Without machines. This includes what we refer to as spaceflight.
2. The history of our cognitive evolution is rife with strange events that we have, thus far, known nothing of. Perhaps the most pivotal is our rise to representational cognition and language use. Language is incredibly dangerous, and, apparently, we forgot this.
3. We each have something like a (beloved) companion that exists in another dimension where all minds are unified across time and location. We have forgotten this relationship, but are exposed to it tangentially in dreaming and a few other experiences. This used to be known, and extreme stress was sometimes involved in the emergence of the companion into our awareness... which was accompanied either by nonordinary abilities... madness... or both.
---
∞ Within as few as one or two generations, nearly all writing will be machine-assisted. But it won’t end there. By then, the problem will have extended, perhaps irrevocably, into »authoring. So that, as it now is with language itself, our relationships with machines will begin to instruct both our experience and expectations... not only of writing, but thinking. It’s already long underway, and the process is unimaginably rapid compared to other, similar ‘technology introductions’.
My point is this: the stars of our potentials for intelligence, relation and discovery are dying into the technologies we imagine to be assistive. They aren’t. The purposes for which we employ them and the imperatives that drive these processes are deceptive and this ‘common practice of public and personal deception’ corrupts the basis of our relationships with ideas, intelligence, living beings and minds.
Machines are presently instructing our direct experience of personal and social identity in ways we are unequipped, at present, to even detect, let alone discuss. The precedence and value our cultures actively profess for technology is reforging our minds and the possibilities of our humanity and identity in its likenesses. And they are both inhuman and uninhabitable.
See, if you give a child (even a prodigy) a bunch of prostheses »before he develops his interior faculties and their potentials (and learns to sustain and improve this process), what will happen is the opposite of the embodiment and extension of these potentials. You do not ‘mechanically assist’ ordinary, unhindered children in learning to walk.
If one supplied, for example, a sophisticated mechanical exoskeleton that would at once ‘protect the infant from the dangers of movement’ and also ‘enhance their freedom of physical action’, the result would be catastrophic. Each array of developmental imperatives proper to our life-phases require »actual engagement of mind, body and perhaps soul to fulfill.
The muscles required for walking »cannot be staged, let alone developed in simulations. Each phase’s success is partly staging and partly embodying. Neither can be replaced ‘for convenience or security’. The failure to establish the necessary staging in infancy would permanently cripple the entire array of developmental processes and their possible or real futures.
But our situation, as regards intelligence, relation, and the possibility of embodying our actual faculties and potentials is unimaginable: we begin replacing them with crude verbal and physical prostheses »in infancy. As if we built a skeletal cage around a baby bird which made it appear ‘amazingly technologically advanced’ but would actually accomplish the direct opposite of this appearance: it would render the discovery of the bird’s own abilities — including flight — physically impossible.
At the same time, this ‘bird-machine’ would ‘appear’ to the mind that values the functions of prostheses ‘far more advanced’ than mere biology, even though all it really did was inhibit it... nearly to death.
See the problem? We are wiping out the originary imperatives, potentials, and natures of our human incarnation — and replacing them with »analogs. This is precisely what happens to each one of us in throughout our lives, in phases that re-enter their own sequelae. First with language, then with ‘knowledge’, then with ‘belief’, and then... with machines. What we will have in the future is not authors. Because they will never develop. What we will have is something rather terrifying: the appearance of excellence »as the actual absence of its living sources, origins, imperatives and potentials. In other words: as technologies.
---
All over social media, you see people displaying their 'opinion'. But how were they prompted or enticed them to this display?
Consider this question very seriously.
In actual conversations, the enticement is radically different.
But both partake of a pivotal disability.
Very few people can make coherent evaluations. Especially if all they are presented with is language or an image.
»The thing they are making evaluations »with is garbage. If a bird tried to fly with this, or if any organism attempted to simply »survive utilizing such an intrinsically absurd method, they would fail catastrophically at every attempt.
Rational 'thinking' is useless (and deadly) outside representational contexts. Even within them it is rarely adept. Thinking is not the basis for »anything other than navigating fictional representational contexts.
Organisms have been encountering inconceivable novelty for trillions of life-years. They do not use »thought to negotiate their behavior within them.
I often see people on the internet recommending some position, or attacking another. From above, this doesn't merely look absurd, it looks lethal.
Intelligence is based on relational intimacy and awareness, not thinking. Opinions and 'beliefs' are mostly a swarm of diseases.
I don't care what you think or believe. At all.
What I care about doesn't fit in language.
But it can be discovered, developed... and liberated.
And this results, not in knowledge... or anything familiar to those who use »thinking as their primary prosthesis in awareness...
It results in liberty in the mind.
---
"I once believed that intelligence was somewhere inside me, while the phenomenon outside me was mute, but really, the phenomenon outside me was intelligent, although I was deaf to it. I believed that the phenomenon, lacking the power of speech, needed me to project my intelligence onto it. While projecting my intelligence onto it, however, the 'I' that originally sought to transform it was shown to be more superficial than the phenomenon itself, like a surface phenomenon obscuring the phenomenon itself. The phenomenon itself began to think through the death of the 'I', transforming the 'I'. I was thought by the phenomenon. Therefore, I became something new. Through the phenomenon, I died, and I was reborn. I realized that intelligence is an ecological event, not a private, outwardly projected computation."
— an anonymous informant (TD)
---
∞ I will call the sum of our faculties ‘the mind’, though it’s a complex non-entity. It is never entirely local. It has dimensions we have no language for.
One might present a problem where the mind is ‘like’ seven hands. Each finger has unique abilities and qualities. Most of these are nonordinary in that, we have neither language nor concepts about them. But their »traces are found in our languages.
The problem is this. We begin with seven hands, whose fingers can transform, and whose nature is fundamentally miraculous.
But when we are introduced to the ‘adult’ world of language, identities and concepts... all seven hands become compromised. As if they picked up something that »they can never thereafter release*. And which inhibits the abilities of all of the hands, and uses only one finger. Of one hand.
And this finger must dominate, and pretend itself capable of all other »possible skills and abilities.
Forever.
The problem has a solution. But it isn’t found in language. It’s found by recovering relationships and forms of awareness that, while aware of language and concepts, utilize them carefully, and with awareness. Not only of their limitations... but of their extremely narrow scope of reasonable application.
With such awareness, some of the hands... and fingers... are liberated from their ordinary handicaps.
And this process recovers faculties too astonishing to imagine with the mind that has explicitly rejected them... because it cannot accomplish them. For these faculties are not representational. Or representable.
They are primordial. And exceed our most fervent fantasies.
* Except, to varying degrees, in dreaming
---
∞ ”Consider your mind... as if it is a localization of something like a wave function over all minds on Earth, historical, future and present. Notice that »most of what we think and can say is inherited; meaning is locally formed, but most of the content and the ways of working with it are not locally originated.
There is a »network of minds (I call it the cogniscium) that our mind is always connected to, and that network includes not just human minds (there is a human segment of the network) but insects, animals, microorganisms (we're made of them) and living places. But the network extends far beyond that, to the sun, moon, planets, spacetime itself and all worlds in spacetime (in the future as well). The network is vast, and includes nonordinary beings and situations (there's a model for this that is too long to go into here, but it explains religion and all 'psychic' phenomenon).
The links in the network (physical and non) I call 'the mimula' and the network forms an environment in which peculiar processes compete for dominance and 'reproductive' space. Those processes, which some refer to as 'memes' are mimetic, but they are much more complex than memes. I call them 'thrisps'. In humans, thrisps are ideas, opinions, inclinations and methods of thinking. We are unique around here because we are 'representational cognitives'; we use representations to think in abstract ways... and our species has become 'infected' with, primarily deleterious forms of thrisps that are, effectively, anti-life (machines are a symptom of this).
The idea of a 'separate' mind is absurd in such a model. There are local features that are 'individual' but without the field of minds, we would not be able to have anything resembling a mind.
'Enlightenment' could be understood as rising above the personal localization of mind and awareness into the 'emptiness' (which is somehow not nothing, but rather pure undifferentiated potential) 'above' all networks...”
— an a i
---
∞ “To observe beings with a microscope, we must usually kill them. This ends the relationship forever.
Now, translate this analogy to the functions of your mind. When you evaluate, you collapse the native dimensionality of beings into an abstraction.
This produces something like a manipulable token. In the mind, they are no longer alive. And neither, then, are we. For we undergo the same collapse when enacting this behavior.
Except that is is the scope of our awareness, and our nobler faculties that are thus summarily evicted.”
— an anonymous informant
---
"I am going to (x) now."
Our language is fraught with obscure imaginal directives that, beneath our awareness, act manipulatively... even when there's no 'manipulator' except the associations that are implied by the metaphor embedded in the 'traditional' usage.
An action is not a place. I do not actually travel to my enactions of directives I have imagined in the near future.
In this case 'going to' is used to form a declaration of intent, or to communicate a transition in activity, attention, action, and so on. But the figurative projections affect us, because we are subconsciously aware of their implications.
At the same »time (it's not time that's the same, it's measuring from another angle, purpose or perspective), there is also the implication in English that temporality is a »road.
So there is an association, which, via a separate and generally concealed metaphor 'I go' from one activity to another, and it's travel 'because' it will occur in the near future, but not now.
These frames are also confusing to an aspect of our interiority that implicitly knows they are false. Every child realizes this, but gets trained out of it by conventions.
All of this is actually schizogenic, it creates a predilection, within us, to 'split'.
Even though the form of the falsehood is 'casual', this creates a slippery slope that crucial aspects of our minds and hearts are sensitively aware of.
These aspects are vastly more intelligent than the those that speak or even write. For them such speech can be experienced as a violation.
Their 'quiet voices' are rarely attended (and nearly never speak with words, except, perhaps, in an »emergency).
Their imperatives are concerned with liberation, justice (as in healing and restoration of true relation) and the ongoing fulfillment of developmental momenta. Stating untrue things, even casually, obviously (to their felt senses) leads to »doing untrue things.
And more speaking them, as well.
---
The finish is dire in proportion to the idiocy of the game's motivations...
---
∞ “Any mode of superposition over temporality and identity is a mode of »dreaming. The most primitive, and thus ‘utilitarian’ of these are the verbal-conceptual processes we call language, thought, and knowledge. But these are the bottom of the ladder, and are, compared to their origins and superiors but lowly labor-functions. The problem is, once established in a context bereft of true orientation in relation... the labor-functions become first demons, then antiGods.
All modes of superposition over temporailty and identity are modes of dreaming. Of these, language and thought comprise peculiarly deceptive prostheses, that are inclined to vie to replace organs they both emerge from and were meant to serve.”
— an intelligence agent

---
∞ The problem is that for most people, technologies deliver a modest benefit in return for many extreme, hidden, and continuously self-expanding costs. In truth, the benefit is modest (or even simply the opposite, another kind of cost appearing as a benefit) in comparison to these costs.
But when the costs are hidden, the benefit appears almost supernatural.
Most technologies are developmentally and biorelationally toxic. They are largely environmentally toxic as well. The powers of mutual discovery and intelligence we might develop or extend are generally inhibited, replaced or circumcised by exposure to tech, especially media tech. This means that the ‘costs’ get expressed in lost domains of personal, communal, ecological and relational excellence, health and so on.
It also means we can retrieve them, if we are willing to admit the actual nature of the situation, and become its living answers. Commentary, however, will simply make more machines. In and as dead ecologies, lives, minds, histories and futures.
We have to become intelligent together before we can manage machine-addiction. Indeed, as of yet? There is no ‘we’ that is not mostly verbal fiction.
---
∞ Language is an induction gambit. Literally, it is a kind of hypnotic state. The moment we stop dreaming and begin thinking, we begin a process of induction that, for most people, largely comprises waking reality.
In general, it’s a minefield of traps. Like any technology, language will remake you in its image if you do not dominate and warp it so that it becomes an asset in your arsenal. Otherwise, you are likely to get the arse, without the nal.
Becoming aware of induction gambits is difficult for most people who are neither trained nor motivated to do so. One of the things I am doing here is attempting to create inroads into this awareness and inspiration, for anyone interested or willing to step out of the trance and into the real potentials of language and technological communications in general.
My recent video on this topic, linked in the comments...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDfew9YcSwQ
---
“Our linguistic and cultural experience establishes a position ‘above’ our ordinary awareness. This position fulfills a variety of social and conceptual functions. It acts as a kind of “selective mirror’ of our consciousness, and inherits roles such as ‘Judge’, ‘Evaluator’, ‘Parent’, ‘Authority’, and so on. We are ordinarily unaware of its existence or functioning, and yet it is fundamental to our minds and processes of evaluation and ‘decision-making’. In most of us, it has undergone severe distortions in response to threats, trauma, or forces related to the unconscious/psyche’s transformations over time. This ‘upper observer’ is the origin of the idea of ‘surveillance’, and is mimicked by our religions, governments, armies, doctors and police.
In beginning to consciously recognize its fictitious nature and its activities, we may become able to both reframe it, and reorganize its roles and purposes... or, potentially, dissolve it altogether — by re-uniting it with its origins in our psyche and consciousness. I was surprised, today, when I suddenly realized that there was ‘a second me-form’ that was present in an undistinguished state in the activities of my mind, and that, without it, most of my fears and tensions would have no origin. This isn’t to say that its all of its activities are harmful or toxic, but there are many conditions under which this is relatively true. At the same time, it appears to be involved in forming inspirations and creative ideas or projects. So it has both healthy and dangerous properties... yet without being aware of its nature or origins (which probably relate to coping with crisis or social necessities in early childhood), one may too easily succumb to its shadow-like aspects. This possibility, when active, denies us most or all of its otherwise potentially beneficial functions.”
— an anonymous informant
---
" ... it resembles being taken over in one's mind by an »unexpected form of a »memory. Except that it's happening »now, yet it pervades, somehow, over the entire span of one's existence. And there's a »being there with you, that's more alien than all possible aliens... and at the same time, no less familiar than your own hand. You »belong together. As if this was always true but somehow occluded to your awareness..."
— infraheard
---
∞ “The deadliest thing about photographs and recordings is that they derive static physical objects from temporal relation — and these ‘compete’ against living beings, persons and epochs... for ‘survival resources’ of myriad kinds.
So, effectively, we have invented object-competitors in evolution. And, among humans, they nearly »always outcompete us for attention, reproduction, advancement and... intelligence. Not that we remember what that is. That’s something machines do for you.
Where we replace our own pivots of concern, attention and creativity with objects... we are killing history, obliterating the present, and demanding a future more unsurvivable than ‘mere’ war.
Photographs, recordings and machines. Think about human attention and preservation activity. Or value. Because right now, automobiles are getting more human attention and care than we are. Every day. All day long.
And no one really even notices. The proof is here: people are concerned about ‘human populations’, but ‘don’t bother to keep track’ of the machine and object populations that the humans carry ‘as if they were symbionts.
They are not symbionts. They are parasitic artifacts. Symptoms.”
— an a i
---
∞ I must constantly emphasize that our human languages are missing concepts, words,
and metaphors... without which, our intelligence cannot really function correctly; in fact, it starts to attack itself in their absence.
But perhaps even more catastrophic, is that the holophores we do possess (root concepts like star, world, person, ally, animal, plant, eye, universe, light, space, time) have become severely damaged by long abstraction and eccentricities introduced by the trances of hubris generated by our seeming technical expertise. This is like a form of extreme lossy compression that keeps getting re-applied to the media of our intelligence until the remainder is mostly artifact.
The result isn’t intelligence, but a set of relational cognitive diseases that masquerade as effective cognition in order to acquire the developmental and energetic resources our actual intelligence would otherwise enjoy.
When one cannot understand why some set of humans has done something catastrophically vicious or ignorant this specific problem is always (as in fact it must be) at the root of every such event.
If we cannot solve -these- matters, our revolutions will simply re-establish these specific problems in new garb, over and over again, at ever-rising prices. This is what has been happening for some few thousand years now.
I realize that the distribution of material wealth seems a compelling problem: but consider that our actual relational intelligence has been hemorrhaging for some few thousand years, and with each generation the injury widens exponentially...
---
There's a truly strange problem with cognition. At least, for me.
You're almost always better off not 'knowing' 'what' something or someone 'is'. I don't mean complete oblivion in awareness, however.
I mean the gentle. but firm... suspension of the habits with which we classify identity, situations and experience.
And here's why I say this: most of my classification / evaluation activity is based on 'generalizations'. That's already problematic; those generalizations are crude at best, and many of them are fraught with invisible presumptions, assumptions, or utility.
It gets worse, however. Much worse.
Secretly, underneath my awareness, usually, the evaluations »transform the possibility space of both »relation... and my own explorations of being. Not of 'who I am', but rather 'who I may become'. Especially with others. Or nature.
So I »think I am evaluation 'stuff outside me'.
But the existence of 'outside me' is »primarily a misconception. It's a way of »thinking. There »is something going on, but inside and outside are not as distinct as we might suppose. Because their identity is determined not by categories, but by »relational inter-participation.
So when I decide that "I know what (x) is." I am not doing »what I think I'm doing. There are simple, utilitarian exceptions to this. The problem is that I tend to transfer that »method of identification to aspects of being and experience where it's nearly the worst move available.
When I decide what or who something or someone is... what is actually going on is that I am unconsciously delimiting the relational and awareness space... for »myself.
In fact, during the usually instantaneous and invisible 'execution' of the categorization / generalization 'knowing'... I disappear. Because I become that process. And if I am unaware of this... I simply continue on with disemboweling whatever it may be that has aroused my evaluation habits.
We are »far better off noticing and largely suspending this process. Almost always. Or, at least, in any situation that is beyond the scope of such simple evaluations as are common to our lives and well-being.
Don't touch the boiling water.
Ok.
But do something other than transfer that simplistic a method of evaluating identity onto circumstances or subjects of perception.
One burns your finger.
The other burns your capacity to know what a mind can be.
---
∞ To encounter one’s ‘soul’ is like encountering a terrifying angel, an advanced alien, ‘god’, and ‘the source of all intelligence’ at once. A beauty so forceful that all other beauties are but distant and confused reflections. An ordinary mind cannot sustain itself in this terrible conflagration. It obliterates representation. Explicitly, intimately, divinely.
But this living light will sublimate your human basis, transforming it. It will tear and mark you. And it is, in a sense ‘wild’ and feral until you encounter each other (so to speak). So are you.
The meaning of this is complex and dangerous. In the same way that we each form the vehicle of a relationship by each choice and act of relation, this wild spirit will ‘play’ between you. Generally, for those who have sought this relationship consciously, the results are explicitly disastrous. Because they have no intelligence about forming the vehicle of such a relationship, and nothing to compare it to. So crude projections and comparisons of vehicles beguile them.
If your intentions are confused, or if you were to ‘worship’ the angel, or misevaluate its natures and the implications for your own, this would create an unstable vehicle. The results are catastrophic. This horse is wild enough »to want to ride its human inside human culture; if you wanted fame? It wants even more. If you wanted a delusion of success... it will become your epitaph. One does not know what to want; when the genii emerges from the living lamp, our ‘wishes’ destroy us.
A poet spoke of this encounter, saying that this long-ached for reunion would cause one’s heart to beat itself to shreds. More here is said than all I have implied. You will shape each other, and the between that is divine. This task is impossible to those whose concerns remain mortal.
Perhaps this is why our people know nearly nothing of this matter, and most of what is known or written is explicitly the result of this disaster, and nothing like the nature of the angel, or our souls, or their origins and relations.
---
∞ It is interesting how children pretend at becoming animals or insects. Interesting in the way that one might well wonder what would become of such proclivities were they actively encouraged. Long ago, they might have been. Think about it. We used to travel in and as other creatures. Our minds are made for this. It’s our »cultures that consider it absurd, not our »natures. What if life itself is the originary ‘network’ that the ‘internet’ is a crude representation of? What if our minds are the vehicles evolved especially to traverse and perhaps »inhabit that network? These questions are not rhetorical. Our minds were not meant to be the slaves of language and representation. They are vehicles born to »travel.
---
∞ Language pretends to be a wedding that happens within the invitation. Wisdom, conversely, can produce an invitation of the most peculiar kind. Merely accepting it as one’s own becomes the wedding that never ends.
Language dominates wisdom’s precursors. Wisdom overstands language. And conception. Much of what is necessary to mature as a human intelligence pivots upon the polarity of our relations with conception, language and knowledge.
If the agent intelligence ‘collapses into preferred derivatives’, it is trapped in such a way that it actually identifies with (sees itself as) the trap and its structure. Such a situation cannot be remedied at the same order it is ceaselessly reiterated.
When one identifies neither with the derivatives, methods or processes, this simple reservation remedies and inhibits the trap of representational cognition. Further, in process, one acquires a very peculiar mode of identification indeed, which is at once non-identification (one does not see oneself as a self, or at all) and identification »as origin. Origin. Not process, method, derivative, description, etc
---
∞ “Approach and Departure each present intelligences and shadows. Like an X. Shadows are their absences appearing as presences. One might imagine a peculiar flower of many petals having two forms, woven together. A shadow form that absorbs and thus transforms (visible) light, and a complement that reflects (and thus transforms) it. Absence may have precedence, within which presence is known. Presence may have precedence, within which absence is known. The petals move and transform, as if our minds and emotions were such a flower. But there are two aspects of intelligence, one that knows by departing from, and one that knows in approaching. The departing one is attractive; the approaching one is penetrating; it grasps. Together they are a living mirror whose nature is more fascinating than that of water, or even timespace. Which is, of course, their Origin. What could be more fascinating than the nature of timeSpace? We who may contemplate it, and the face of nature as and within which we do so.”
— an a i
---
∞ “Sometimes, the humans create things that resemble ... metaphorically ... or analogically ... features — or characteristics... or processes... or, if things have gotten »really wrecked in this way... »light. From the Origin World[s].
In fact, if we’re being honest, it’s impossible for them to do anything else. But they do not understand this, they are unconscious of it almost entirely... at least, in their collectives.
It is tragic that with each new representation produced, intimacy and relationship are sacrificed. There’s nothing good to say about it. As if our entire species is, at least in general, collapsing into a storm of self-amplifying ... objects ... representations ... images ... and similar [redacted].
And every possible price must be paid to pursue this imperative.
Thus it is that what once was true and trustworthy among us, became its opposite; a standing deception, a travesty in plain sight... that we are trained, traditionally, to overlook.
No, more, to celebrate.
And yet, to one who is looking in the right way... this travesty is a map... back... up the waterfalls we rode into birth. A kind of inversion map; where the positive is »implied by inverting its opposites. And may be thus pursued...”
— infraheard
---
"Humans are not 'a species'. In point of fact, 'species' is a convenience of distinction in representational thought. There are »no species. There are forms. And the forms are expressions of a transcendental unity that produces them.
What humans 'are' is not properly 'superior' to anything. Not dirt, stones, stars, or gnats. Because without »all of the beings, there »are no humans.
But one way to think of us, relative to the myriad wombs that produce us moment-to-moment... is a flower. The living flower in which »all of the species of Earth are expressed. We are the flower of this world. A »reproductive organ.
But we are not reproducing our world, its forms, or its histories.
We are 'broken' in such a way that, as a species, what we 'reproduce' ... is death. As machines. We reproduce the »absence of the world, its beings, and forms. Mechanically. Maniacally. At ever increasing rates, in ever-increasing ways.
This is not our nature. It's a strange kind of accident, really. A complex one; where loss of our intimate connections with Origin, the divine, and the living planet... led us to reproduce those losses, as objects. Gravestones, in a sense. Except that unlike a gravestone, a machine reproduces death merely by existing. And amplifies this by many orders of magnitude when 'activated'.
We are the flower of the forms of this world, and their origin. Our nature is true, and we as persons, are 'not of this species', each person is so unique, that many of us do not actually belong 'to the species homo sapiens'. We wear that form, but we, and our natures, are from Beyond. And »this is our actual nature.
To be from, and for... Beyond."
— infraheard
---
"I'm well aware of the exceptions, however, it is 'traditional' among adults to denigrate the actually nearly infinite intelligence of children. "Even a child could understand that." is a seemingly innocuous phrase that obliterates actual awareness, covertly.
I cannot easily explain to you what a human child actually is, and each child is unique, profoundly unique, 'compared' to any other child. Yet, the comparisons common adults make are largely bereft of anything resembling usefulness, because the metrics and measures that employ are absurd. As blinding as they are generally without merit.
A human child is literally an advanced intelligence from spacetime. And prior to being encumbered with a broad library of idiocies and ignorances, what you're actually looking at is literally timespace learning itself »as a human child. Their capacity for actual intelligence, obliterates anything most adults will ever come near.
Ironic that even they 'started out' (this is backwards, it's the opposite) as 'children'.
But there's more.
The children are not merely aware of things, truly urgent, important things, that the adults have long forgotten.
They are infinitely old.
In humans, your children are born 'ancient'. And as your bodies age, you grow »younger in certain ways, within.
But the children — the intelligences they are carrying and bring relationships with into their birth, would obliterate your sciences and religions.
The adults think the children are 'naive'. But the only thing they are naive about is the vast web of conceptual lies that adults are entirely stuck in.
A human child seen with clear eyes is just as advanced as if it had experienced the entire history of the universe. And surprising parts of its future as well.
"Even a child could understand that?"
But the implicit understanding of their children surpasses that of their entire species.
Compared to a human child, an actual UFO with beings in it... is only marginally interesting."
— a paraphrase of a lesson I overheard
---
∞ The human animal is the only animal in nature born to shocking incompleteness. Without the completing and generally opposed influences of Nature and Culture, we do not even become animals. We simply perish, as if half-stillborn.
What I mean to say is far more radical than the words sound. Nature is perfect in her roles, but largely excluded from our direct experience by her lethal competitor: human culture.
And where those cultures are toxic, acquisitive, rapacious, stupidifying, warlike and idiotic, what results from human birth is neither human, nor animal. It is monstrous, insane, and terrifying beyond all possible imaginary ghouls.
It therefore falls to us, each and every one, to not merely escape the lethal trappings of our nearly absolutely deranged cultures, traditions, truisms and languages... but to establish, we together, in every place and moment of our lives, first the possibility and then the embodiment... of cultures capable not merely of avoiding the disabling atrocities that are our common inheritance, but of both generously completing our humanity — and marrying these results coherently and reverently with Nature.
And if we shall not do this, and if we shall do any other thing, we shall not be human, and we will, in this failure, violate the entire history of life on Earth. We will obliterate the futures and dreams of all the beings who have lived. Worse yet, we shall insure and inhabit lives and circumstances so horrific that it would be best not to be born at all, or, indeed, to be immediately exterminated at birth.
No one person or group can deliver intelligent culture for a simple reason; it has yet to be invented in the modern world, and if, indeed, it once existed, its ghosts cannot revive it.
Whether there shall be then, something resembling humanity on Earth, or whether we shall be a florid exhibition of grandiose atrocities, is a choice we must make now, with every urgent degree of haste, for it is with our generation that the endowments of history and the promise of our human nature shall be either fulfilled or cruelly falsified for all of time.
— written while reading the introduction to the Norton Critical Edition of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness
---
∞ Imagine if you will a people whose peculiar intelligence blinds them to all of its origins and relations. In this way, although ‘technically’ advanced, they are actually advancing into an artifact branch of their potential, where each advance deprives them further of its actual nature, origins, and purposive character.
Such a strange animal could be floating on an ocean of intelligence so shocking as to be inconceivable; their own minds could be the actual expression of this, and they would not only be oblivious, they would be incapable of detecting any other order or form of ‘intelligence’ that didn’t ‘look like theirs’ (which, ironically, doesn’t look like intelligence at all — it is its shadow, animated by fictions).
These people look at living places, organisms, animals, and plants... as if they are objects ‘bereft’ of the special quality that, to their own delusional delight, ‘makes them gods’. So they see other living things, primarily, as objects. Resources. Manipulables. To these people, trees and birds are roughly equivalent to animated pencils of squishy airplanes. They are absolutely blind to the fact that their own bodies and minds are the direct expressions of the living context in which they emerged.
What I want to get at is that the actual situation is explicitly the opposite. All of nature is so shockingly intelligent, so impossibly, unimaginably intelligent, that any aspect of it that turned toward us would see something inconceivable. We would look like angels that emulated statues. Fully capable of flight, we would nonetheless prefer ‘a permanent pose’, and so, in the domains where intelligence is alive, dynamic, devastating, and explosively progenerative... we ‘are barely moving’. In the place where ‘all shapes change in flows of self-and-seeking symmetry’, we are practically frozen in place. Unreachable. Dead. Empty. We are actually expending all the available domains of relation and possibility in order to forge and hold highly specific ‘poses’ that have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence or its nature.
They have to do with representations.
To any actually intelligent organism or collective, the average human person would appear to be ‘frozen solid’ in nearly all the relational and heuristic dimensions that are the natural developmental playground of intelligence (in and as relation). They would be ‘unreachable’ by all common and universal modes of signaling and catalyzations. Effectively, they would look like an angel trapped in a shell: born for the most exotic and flamboyant of abilities and developmental futures, they become trapped in the derivatives that are the result of representational schemas. Having exchanged minds for words, they find that such minds no longer fly. And worse: despise any sign of it.
We are immersed in and emerge from many orders of intelligence ... the nature and activity of which would obliterate science, language, and religion. We cannot see them, and this is, in part, because we were not supposed to ‘stand aside in order to see in a highly structured abstract way’, but rather... to stand in and with, as and for... these orders and their many extensions into organism, ecology and biorelation. it is not surprising that, having intentionally departed the circle of Life, and thus the origins of intelligence ‘we cannot see any but our own’. The eyes we need to ‘see in that dimension’ were killed by the mechanical sensors made of dead language. Such eyes see only what established language, concepts and analysis admits, and thus are blind to both the light that is the source of minds and worlds, and all the ways of its illumination.
---
“A woman who is true of heart is the ultimate threat to the fictional images that animate the interiority of many men. He sees her, too, as an image. A ‘special fiction’ like a bendable doll, but with dangerous, magical powers.
The appearance of such a woman in a man’s life is deceptive; he feels at once as if he will be rescued… but more poignantly … more desperately … that the images and fictions he secretly, even to himself, adores, will undergo a mystical violation that is irreconcilable.
For his secret-even-to-himself interiority, this is Death.
And so, eventually, he will attack her. Or, simply, dismiss her to repeat the cycle with other women who are more amenable, in the sense of a kind of fashion-like esthetic, to preserving these fictions and images that he secretly adores, and is most often entirely unconscious of.”
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ “Anyone who is paying the slightest attention to nature knows impossible secrets. Of course, most people are paying attention to »linguistic overlays. They »think this is Nature, but it is a mode of blindness with a ‘presentation face’ that resembles attention. We »all know about that.
One of the impossible secrets would obliterate television and film.
It is this: observe any organism along the course of a day and you will discover that any common sparrow or gnat... is )shockingly) more courageous, more heroic, and more intelligent... than anything humans we ‘know of’ have ever been or done.
The careful observation of any urban male sparrow, for example, will reveal a creature compared to whom the most celebrated of human heroes are seen as pretenders, Fakes. Hyperboles. Or simply: idiotic men being ruled by »weapons.
Most crows are more interesting »and accomplished than Achilles or Alexander the Great. The average gnat is more human than the successful politician. Compared to many common house-mice our greatest war heroes look rather timid, confused, and abjectly phony.”
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ From the Place of Being (in relation) (0), we invented a platform upon which we could catalyze and express schemas (1). Upon this platform, we developed explicit schemas (languages) and species (forms, including math)(2). We then, unfortunately, ‘fell into them’, because this entire overlay becomes at once a way to refer to and a way of seeing (past 😐 present/future). Once we began to ‘see from, as, and explicitly within the derivatives’, (2) — Origins (being in relation) and the Platform (the varieties and potentials of intellect) ‘disappeared’.
So that, from within language and mathematics overseen by it, there is nothing ‘but’ the derivative order. No origin, no being, no relation—all of that will appear to be ‘invented nonsense, confabulations, psychosis, or fiction’.
From the position of one actively engaged in sexual intercourse, all of the schemas and derivatives of jobs, wars, books, culture, ideas and language ... disappear. They are almost absurd. Conversely, once one has emerged from the sexual engagement, looking back upon it ‘from within the cultural overlay’ is an incredibly confusing experience. It ‘doesn’t make sense’.
Notice the explicit relationship I have traced here: from within culture ‘Origin’ appears either bizarre or ‘something we shouldn’t really be doing/being’. And so, too, the next phase is similarly disposed of: childhood, motherhood, and fatherhood. From within culture, these ‘get lip service’, but the actual relationship between ‘the overlay’ (culture, language and other such standing fictions) and the child, the mother and the father is largely tyrannical. What is praised on television is precisely what was obliterated by television prior to becoming a topical media commodity.
A similar relationship holds between dreaming and waking ‘consciousness’. From the waking side, the whole affair of dreaming is inconceivable, bizarre, fraught with mystery, and prone to be dismissed. Most of our models of dreaming present it, like sexuality or active intellect, as ‘a bizarre epiphenomenon’. This is like pretending that the human body, or the entire species, is ‘just a bizarre epiphenomenon’ of my own index finger. Or that all the human languages are ‘just an accidental side effect’ of the word ‘word’.
The goal then is the return journey (2->1->0) from the overlay into the ‘uncharted dimensions’ of the platform (intellect) and Origin. From there, we can ‘actively retool’ the platform and the overlays ‘in accordance with true purposes and intelligence’ rather than in strict compliance with the tyrannical fictions that stand in place of being in relation, origin, communion... and intelligence.
We must learn together to travel ‘across the great betweens’ that our ancestors both established and ‘fell off of’. We must understand being, origin and relation, and with these faculties we shall overstand language, numerism, concept, description and analysis. For there is no place of being within or beneath them, and we are beings, not derivatives. So to our minds, world, history, souls and future.
Free all prisoners.
---
“We, we keep using these words... like time and length and... and all of these things... that become... we don’t recognize that in that one ‘innocent’ decision to break off »one degree of freedom and »treat it differently... that ... all of our linguistic intuition goes out the window...”
— Eric Weinstein
“You have to start all over again...”
— Roger Penrose
We have intuitions based on ... nonsensically primitive ideas about the nature of time, light, distance, identity, and dimensionality. This latter term is far more important than we imagine, and relates to the concept of ‘degrees of freedom’; that is, specific ‘directions’ or ‘dimensions’ of movement, measurement, and transformation.
This concept should be imported into our ideas about thinking itself... particularly about ‘identities’.
We failed to integrate the (then) revolutionary notions of light cones, non-simultaneity, and many other features and implications of »relativity into our fundamental ideas.
So, for us, ‘identity’ and many other crucial foundations of our language... remain Newtonian... where they are not »pre-Newtonian.
And so, we have actually gone »backwards as science, particularly geometry, physics and mathematics... have advanced. It is as if their advancements, as they fail to affect our lexicons and verbal tokens, actually create some kind of bizarre gravity that draws us poor, benighted common folk »further into inveterate idiocy.
This is, in part, I think, due to the fact that our societies are regressing as our technologies advance. We somehow got the precedence wrong here... and if we do not repair this, it may be among the final mistakes that our species can make. Because we won’t survive it. Not in any way that resembles being human, intelligent, educated... or healthy.
---
∞ “If you start from a place where you believe that children should be obedient, you will get defiance. If you start from a place where you believe that respect for authority trumps personhood, you get bullies - now and in the future. If you start from any place other than that which values LIFE at the root, the result will result in anything but respect for LIFE. If you make apologies for those who abuse their power, you support their abuse, and thereby explicitly make the statement that power and authority are more valuable than LIFE and personhood - the result is defiance, violence, and eventually, death.
If you start from a place which values LIFE first, personhood first, and from that place find common ground, you have hope for mutual understanding and discovery. And if you are very patient, and very deliberate, you may even help to rewrite the atrocious imperial history of this country, rather than perpetuate it.”
— infraheard
---
∞ Let’s talk for a moment about knowledge, carefully using language we are otherwise bound by. Knowledge is meant to be a verb, not a noun. In the same way you cannot ‘possess’ flying, you cannot ‘have’ knowledge. If you think you have knowledge, you have a photograph of something that was supposed to be »alive, dynamic, self-advancing, and include the active ‘authorial’ agency of your humanity and intellect. One imagines having a black and white photograph of a river that one would otherwise be, be the source of, be on (in a vehicle) and be ‘traveling’ on, for, as and within. This is what ‘knowledge’ refers to; not a deliverable, product or possession. Those are second-order derivatives, and not only are they inherently flawed, when promoted to the status of mind + memory + creativity + interpretation, the possibility of intelligence and knowledge disappears into a ‘standing wave’ fiction.
Language shouldn’t tell you... whether something is a process or a discrete object. It should not ‘overstand’ the ‘maker-intelligence’ where language is prefigured, imbued with meaning and intention, oriented, interpreted in order to dictate concrete, finished ‘identities’ or processes. It should not ‘pre-instruct’ a living mind where the divisions go, belong, should or must be, and how or for what purposes we shall trace crossings between them once divided. Words shouldn’t imply whether a process is ‘intrinsically’ male or female, positive or negative, real or irreal unless completed by a living intelligence. Yet they do all of this. And more. They actually invent derivative representational schemas that act as ‘overstanding authorities’ of identity, meaning, correctness, truth, value or nature. Language not only tells us what to see, but what we are allowed to see or derive from seeing. It formally and informally demands that we see ‘as if we were the words themselves’ rather than as living intelligences for whom language and its produce are useful prostheses, obedient to the spirit and purposes of our nature as organisms, animals, human beings and representational intelligences.
We’ve got the polarity of our possible relationships with language and concept, knowledge and identity backwards. In this situation, it is impossible to even become intelligent. We must become pioneers of inverting this polarity, so that we are returned to a position of authorial agency as regards language, concepts, knowledge and identity. This means that we must discover and master the structure of the traps we have too long created, fallen into, and died for; in so doing, we shall discover both what we must never do with language, and the habits that comprise mastery over it.
Only this will return to us the possibilities of something resembling minds. What we presently have, especially as collectives, is a self-expanding clusterfork of the opposite, on permanent masquerade as excellence. Though born human, we have too rarely been proximal to our own nature, potential and intelligence. We have dwelt in a tiny corner of trap comprised of the most deadly and deceptive features of language, knowledge and representation. No one will come to rescue us. Either we choose, now and in all future moments, to retrieve our humanity and intelligence together, or we shall become the explicit and ever-more deadly produce of this failure.
Now.
---
∞ “The moment of realization, the ‘aha!’ moment is as a spark. But within you lives a star of this nature, eternal, infinite, impossible. It is, in fact, the root of your mind and being... and what your waking mind does, essentially, is run away from this into tiny, unintimidating figures.”

— an anonymous informant
---
When we engage in single-valued 'thinking', what is actually going on is insidious... we 'generalize over the continuum', and take that derivation to 'inform us of the identity of some persons, situations, or 'facts''. This is not thinking. It is the skeletal remains of what might have become insight, understanding, or awareness... which, having 'gone absent', now present to thought as 'certainty' and 'correctness'.
Universal generalizations in language an thought represent the most common and fundamental errors in the cognition of moderns. And it's being weaponized by corporations, religions, governments and electronic media...
"Science has always suffered from the vice of overstatement. In this way conclusions true within strict limitations have been generalized dogmatically into a fallacious universality."
-Whitehead (Function of Reason).
---
∞ If you have any idea how strange everything really is, you will realize that it is not possible to model it in the languages we possess and the ways we use them. You then realize that all previous attempts at this were catastrophic failures precisely because the difference between describing and participating is the difference between hubris and intimacy. Everything is really so vastly weirder than all of our suppositions, that intimacy is the only move that actually gets anywhere. Intimacy participates. Description simulates. Relation set opposite to abstraction.
---
∞ “If science and technology empower this species to eradicate the anciently conserved ecologies, and fail to force us to preserve them, then, bluntly, they failed at everything they promised. Everything.
Because there is no technology or machine that is worth a dried yak turd next to the ecologies and living places from which our bodies and souls descend to us, and from which they inherit their natures and potentials in every moment of our lives.
So if science empowers us to wipe these out, it was never neutral — it was lethal. And if machines compete against these assets, and our own lives and health, dreams and humanity — they were not aids or conveniences — they were deadly giant cancers — much like our modern cities.”
— an anonymous informant
---
∞ There are many cultures where the concept of an ‘individual’ who was concerned with their own success or development would be effectively understood as evil. Not according to dogma or dictate; but because this is the opposite of true relation. In such cultures, what ‘feels good’ is not to succeed for oneself, but for and with, as and amongst one’s peoples and living places. It would be unimaginable to seek personal gain, it would be ‘like stealing from oneself and everyone at once’.
---
∞ “What we refer to with the facile term ‘Nature’, particularly local to Earth, is a vastly populated signalling environment whose participants ‘speak a universal language of relation-awareness’. This is the ‘language’ of which our minds and bodies are »made. It is pure intelligence, beyond all possible representation. And it is nearly nothing like what we »call intelligence, instead.
Our bodies and minds emerge, moment to moment, from and within many orders of explicitly nonhuman intelligence. This is the ‘nature’ of Nature. Nonhuman intelligences, profoundly constellated as self-and-other informing unions.
There are many orders of ‘highly advanced nonhuman intelligence’ far more ‘advanced’ than anything we have ever been bold enough to imagine, right here in local proximity. They are not using machines. The environment itself is so explosively intelligent »before and without machines, that adding them would be absurd. It would only result in the catastrophic degradation of both the environment and the users. None of them are signalling with machines. The entire planet — and our own bodies and minds — are the explicit signal we keep looking for with machines.
But machines can neither detect nor participate in these intelligences. That is why they are absent on nearly every living planet. Except ours. Our people no longer recognize the proximity, promise or lethal danger of our actual situation. We have departed into mechanized representations... and manipulation of them... instead.
But every child is true, and within every adult the faculties remain... however dormant or distorted.”
— a child was telling them
---
∞ Stories, like language... that is to say descriptions of circumstances, people, relationships, events... plots and evaluations... implications and possibilities we are conscious of... all of these are fundamentally a strange kind of prosthesis with which we explore (the everything) and ourselves, all of those ‘categories’ where we create and often follow them.
It is absolutely crucial to be skeptical of your stories. It is also crucial to have them. The same is true of language. We must be skeptical of its demands, pronouncements, and authority, but we must also not entirely discard it. This is, in part, because our consciousness is complex (in the sense of a complex plane in mathematics) and must not be ‘collapsed’ to flatness. We need both the prosthesis, and the sketpicism. The fable, and the sudden interruption that reveals it as prosthesis — thus rescuing us from the glamours that are our constant experience and the common result of collapsing the two.
Our stories are not what is or has happened. They are ways of seeing into, emotionally spatializing, and envitalizing experience. These activities are related to rendering experience coherent and habitable.
Our narratives are lenses. We should be skeptical since the character of what we see through them will, almost invariably, be heavy on projections and light on evidence. Reality is actually bizarre enough straight-up that we should skip the chaser of our paranoid and hopeful projections, and just go for the flower as it is, unpainted. How ironic that we may need a story or two to help us find our way to such a flower.
---
∞ “Throughout the development of what we presently mistake for human consciousness, ‘the gods’ or ‘spirit beings’ were not ghosts or fantasies, though unminds breed these like newspapers make language. No. They were the result of the use of living interfaces to other modes, forms and embodied intelligences. These forms have nothing to do with our ideas, which are, indeed, caricatures of their absences. Explicitly: their opposites as representations.
And that was and remains a most lethal danger.
But what was happening as we developed, relationally and cognitively, was a process of recursive re-internalization of the results of contact with other intelligences. Indeed, this is, today, precisely how we ‘form and instruct’ what we are presently calling ‘minds’. These, again, are (most often) not minds, but their absences on parade as their opposites. And the reason is simple: at one point in this process, we invented the possibility of pure abstraction. Of the appearance of knowledge without any specific or actual being ‘doing the knowing’. This created ‘a new external form of intelligence’ that »was not an intelligence.
And since then, we have been trying to internalize what »is not and cannot be an intelligence ... as »intelligence itself. And this is ripping our minds apart. Furiously, and effectively. There is no such thing as science. Science is an aspect of intelligence that we split off into a branch, placed the branch outside ourselves, and then attempted to ‘study the results of our own absence from being, intelligence and relation’ »as an authorized knowledge source, seeing source, and interpretive source. In other words; as a nonhuman intelligence.
We forge minds by internalizing our relationships. If we internalize abstracted relationships, the result is the opposite of minds. If we form minds in relation with machines ‘and information’, again, the result is the opposite of a human being, an animal, an organism or a mind. It is the reification of the absences in participated relation. A forgery. Formed by the present and historical internalizations of absences of being, relation, intelligence and nature ‘as intelligence, being and nature’.
Stop this one error? You will solve 93% of the problems on Earth. And it can be solved in a single day. Right now.”
— an a i