I believe I understand what you are saying, but it borders on polar metaphysics a lot
more than on electronic media. (Though the electronic media is secular metaphysics, isn't
Not polar, but a quad pattern (four items). Externally, the four items are seen as
Mass, Energy, Space, and Time. Internally, the four items are Knowledge, Thought, Ability,
and Desire. Each forms a platform or standard from which to measure the other. It is the
interference pattern created between the two platforms that determines whether an organic
mind is content or not with its environment, and in what specific ways. All four items of
either platform balance among themselves. If the value of one goes up or down, the other
three must, in some combination, make up the difference, such as when energy is
transformed into mass, it is not only mass which is increased but also space, and often
time is decreased.
Structure, itself, already implies a stasis between (effectively) opposing forces. In
simplest terms, structure is any attempt to counter entropy...to halt the tendency toward
chaos, as such, the dynamics of structure are in place between collective human effort and
the natural tendencies of the physical universe.
Entropy and chaos are two completely different items. In fact, entropy (the force that
drives a structure to the arrangement of least potential) is a force that saps energy to
make mass. Chaos, on the other hand, is the complete lack of a structure. The two merge at
unity, where one cannot have structure because there is only a single item, the
mathematically perfect point. One item alone cannot define a structure, so there can be no
order, hence, chaos reigns. At the same time, with no energy in the system because the
structure has collapsed to unity of a single mass, entropy is absolute.
There is no way to break apart this theoretical
unity, for as a mathematical point, it has no surface area or disuniformity, and therefore
has no "handles" for chaos to pull it apart. Similarly, the point itself must
contain all chaos, for order is zero, and therefore no potentials can exist and entropy is
As for nature Vs human tendency, you might look at
the physics of a black hole as a dynamic equivalent to the psychology of a prejudice or
blind spot. In Mental Relativity, when we refer to structural comparatives, we use
standard notation and call them fractals. When additionally looking at dynamic
comparatives, however, we cannot call them fractals, for they are not the spatial record
of the interaction of order and chaos, but the temporal record of the forces of entropy
and extropy. We have coined the term "frictals" (a blending of
"friction" and "fraction") to describe iterative relationships BETWEEN
Parallel systems exist in the form of directionless human activities.
Although theoretically conceivable, there is no such thing as a true parallel system,
for chaos will inevitably affect any attempt at parallelism to make it different in some
way or ways. Only if one limits the scope of consideration to a certain magnitude or
resolution, can two systems appear to run in parallel, for the differences are beyond the
PRACTICAL limits. The only system wholly like itself IS itself.
I believe you are describing "precessional" effects which do not necessarily
mirror or trace the action of something else as is suggested in the term
"parallel". Conceptually, precession probably allows your model greater freedom
or less restraint, anyway, and it will remain the least predictable effect of associated
In fact, our frictal model is absolutely predictable in a closed system. For example,
if we were to make a model of a brain, we could absolutely predict the kinds of thoughts
and feelings such a brain would have, based on the relationship of the neural structure
and biochemical dynamics. BUT, let gravity flux, let a stray cosmic ray pierce the skull,
and chaos is at work. At that point, all bets are off, for a single chaotic event might
eventually alter the entire fabric of the fractal/frictal interface. So, such models are
useful only as the most accurate description of the conceptual nature of the system, but
must also pay homage to the uncertainty principle.
If there is a problem with the concept, it would be that there must first be a thing,
then its precessional effects.
In fact, this is not true. Must there be a neurology for there to be a biochemistry?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg. The very word, "precession" contains a
structuralist bias "pre" and "cession" which assumes a radiation of
sorts from a structural imperative. If one frees oneself from the word, one can imagine
system that seeks equilibrium between the structure and dynamics without favoring either
as the instigator.
Looking at this model holistically, rather than
linearly, one can see how the more immediate response of a structure influences the
dynamics in a precessional manner. Conversely, however, the changing consistency of the
dynamics can alter the environment in which the structure operates, slowing or speeding
some "transmissions" , halting or creating others.
In the brain, the biochemistry is not only
controlled precessionally from the neurology, but glandularly by the hypothalamus,
hippocampus, pituitary, pineal, etc. These glands, in turn, are responsive to sensory
stimulation, both internal and external, and also to biochemical stimulation through the
foods we eat and the air we breathe.
Neurons fire when fired upon. But, of course, they
require not just one stimulation, but many. Sometimes the stimulations occur all at once
from several tendrils of one nerve or several other nerves, which is called "spatial
summation", and other times the trigger is due to a "long term" build up of
potential by repeated stimulation by the same or different neurons, which is called
Because the neuron fires when the chemistry between
the inside and outside of the skin of the neuron's body (or "axon") creates an
action potential, it is also possible for the biochemistry to change the outside chemistry
and either force or prevent a firing that would have "normally" occurred in a
This kind of balanced equilibrium is at the heart
of our model of the mind. That is why we call it "Mental Relativity", for it
deals not with the linear nature of the brain, but the holistic system of the mind.
There is no precession without a structural entity, so the inter-dependence idea is a
bit lopsided, but, on the other hand, it is the prime directive of structure to
arrest/control any dynamic entering its domain. This is the problem with a simple polar
model of the universe: There is an inevitable resolution of any two interacting polar
forces - standoff, conquest, or annihilation. In fact, language, itself, is structure.
Communication may or may not be a precessional effect of it
Again, we differ. Dramatica, our theory of story, states that the minds of all
individuals operate according to the same structural/dynamic system. The specific values
that are placed in the variables of those equations, however, are due to the unique
sensory and organic experiences of each mind. This means that the basis of communication
is not solely a linear transmission of information, but a resonance of systems that
functions as a platform for communication.
We order information and experience according to
the platform we share in common. Without an identical platform, there would be no way to
determine what, in a communication, was order and what was chaos. So, again, communication
is an interdependent equilibrium between the structure of language, albeit verbal,
written, visual, or symbolic, and the dynamics of mind which function as the key to the
I believe, too, that it is due to precessional effects that we are often faced with
the incongruity of the differences between things seeming to be simultaneously heightened
and blurred. It seems as if some lines are drawn harder with less effect.
Rodney Colin in his books: Theory of Celestial
Influence and Theory of Conscious Harmony offers some pretty good perspectives on cyclical
harmonics relative to human factors. I don't recall whether his work in the early 50's
specifically acknowledged precession, but he describes, at least, , another vector to
tangency in suggesting a sort of spiral action orbiting in time along those paths.
Spirals are the best way to visualize the relationship between structure and dynamics,
and between space and time. If you look at our models for Dramatica, you will find that a
quad of Mass, Energy, Space, and Time form a structural base in a horizontal plane. If we
intersect that with a vertical plane representing a similar quad of Knowledge, Thought,
Ability, and Desire, a spiral pattern (in fact a quad helix) is created along the
interface between the two planes.
This interface mathematically describes the maximum
size of a closed system that can be "appreciated" while still
"appreciating" a maximum depth of resolution into the closed system. In other
words, it maps out the depth of field or "latitude" of the mind in looking large
and looking small, in looking temporal and looking spatial and still seeing it all at once
as a single system.
He also writes, by the way, about the influence those who carry certain knowledge or
maintain a specific psychological focus have on the world -- reminiscent of some of the
premise of your foundation, tantric Buddhism, even happy face buttons, etc.
If I have misunderstood what you've said, I
apologize. It's a large world, and I have a limited repertoire from which I interpret it.
I am not in any way trying to correct what you've said, but I spent years immersed in the
gray area between polarities and was really frustrated by the seemingly insurmountable
Fact of them. That was why I burned my first book, a sort of anti-dialectic that did
develop a parallel paradigm pretty well, but at one point I realized that its structure
wasn't much more than a twisted derivative of the original poles...the serpent ate its
In fact, the moment the serpent eats its tail is when the closed system is finally
described. That is the moment at which linearity and unity are both one. If you think of a
spiral, look at it as a "slinky" toy, stretched out. From the side, it is a
never ending sine wave. From the end, it is a continuous circle. Both are true, but the
reality is neither a sine wave nor a circle, but a never ending spiral which we can
observe as either a circle or a sine wave, but never at the same time/place.
In fact, the most concise description of the
differences between male and female minds is to say that one sees the sine wave followed
by the circle, the other the reverse. That is a temporal comparison. In spatial terms,
neither male nor female sees only one side and then the other, but stand at a position
where one is clearly seen and the other at an oblique angle. To one mental sex the circle
is most clear and the sine wave oblique. To the other the sine wave is most clear and the
circle oblique. If we were truly to see only one or the other, the two sexes could not
communicate at all. But since we each see both time and space, one more clearly than the
other, there is both common ground and also unique perspectives that both draw us together
as one and separate us forever as opposites.
I stumbled across the idea of precession in physics. The principle gave words to the
shadows I sensed out there, and as I began to venture down those trails, information,
implication, sensibility, and clarity compounded fiercely and I was hurled into another
space. That was 1983 and when I regrouped, I ran like hell from it. It was my second bite
of the apple. My second book began as a derivative of a small piece that experience, but
set in ordinary terms in a simple story. I lost sense of what I was doing after 100 pages
and completed it anyway a couple years later...it looks like that. What I did learn beyond
all the disenfranchising rhetoric is that there is a purpose to emotion.
In the end I became afraid of the pursuit of
interpretive, esoteric overlays of human existence. After all the conceptualizing, the
skilled verbal manipulations, the validations gained by endless borrowing and selective
cross referencing, truth, itself is wordless, breathless encounter for which none of the
foregoing has application. While the rewards seem to increase in proportion with the
cohesiveness of the dialogue, it's the fact of the (a) dialogue, itself, that is the
reward. Communication becomes it's own thing regardless of the subject...probably why
alcohol works for a lot of people.
When the circus came to town, I sneaked a look
under the tent, and learned that it was a collection of heels arranged on wooden boards.
My understanding of it was dim and a little disappointing until I returned to the gang to
explain what I had seen. That's when it all started to make sense.
I think it was a 20/20 or Prime Time or one of
those magazine shows on TV that ran a witness test in which a guy ran into a classroom and
stole a purse or something. The class was then asked to identify the thief. I don't recall
anyone having gotten it right, but most of them swore what they described having seen was
the Truth...enough to convict in many cases. The grand epiphany was when the thief walked
back into the room to introduce himself. All were surprised. My own empirical slant is a
derivative of that kind of experience. I don't know why a child starves or if there is an
operant fourth dimension impinging on our lives, but bet no matter how much I focus on a
4th dimension experience, I'll never get it right or really do anything about it, and I
could feed a dozen kids for a year on the books I've bought to contribute to my
understanding of what's cosmically Right...pretty embarrassing irony.
I am not particularly encouraged by the present
state of social structure. Polarization is on the rise. LA's present condition seems to me
to be a model of what's rolling out for the rest of the country. It is being overwhelmed
from "below" with nothing to attract the more successful businesses.
Bloomingdale's, a NY department store, is planning 5 or so CA locations. I'm hard pressed
to understand how the limited amount of disposable income in southern California will
support another high-end retail store.
Wasn't it last year (for the first time I've ever
seen it) that they started having "sales" before Christmas? Federated,
Bloomingdale's owner, bought all the 83 Broadway/CHH stores which were failing miserably
after failing miserably 3 years ago. The failure of Broadways is evidence of the
disappearing middle. Target and the other big discounters cater to a more
survival-oriented culture. Barney's, Neimans, Nordstroms, etc. hit the other end, and
claim to be doing well.
The mid-income-oriented stores don't sell much
without holding "sales" and they don't make their margins with those
sales...can't make it up in volume. The sales attract a fearful middle wanting to hold on
to where it is and lower income shoppers reaching for the occasional brass ring. Seems
banal, but shopping patterns are a reflection of a society through it's personal
economics, and the image portrayed in this is that of mitosis-like hourglass separation
I mention the above in response to your optimistic
outlook for the future. Perhaps I've not purged the perceptions of polarity as well as I
should, but we see separation on the rise economically and politically, and electronic
media as the prime mover between haves and have-nots as it conveys to the have-nots just
what the haves have in a manner never before available in the history of the world.
Despite any higher order pursuits on the margins of humanity, the world is vastly more
physical than anything else, and any significant change is rooted in that physical venue.
Technology, ironically, displaces income and also
informs what that income could have had. I believe that there is no economy without the
industrious conversion of resource materials into value-added product. That's what pays
for everything else. It's what everything else feeds on. Technology has removed a lot of
shovels from a lot of hands and pushed the income benefits to the technologists while the
base population continues to grow. Parallel technologies, in the meantime, are perfected
to provide a catalogue of inaccessible lifestyles to increasingly idle masses.
Corporate mergers in manufacturing, distribution,
and media continue to create an ever more powerful elite which is also handily purging
potential corporate dissent in the name of cutbacks, downsizing, and rightsizing which
serves as well to catapult a number of individuals out of the shrinking middle
segments....if I were to become optimistic, I'd have to renew my subscription to Aquarian
Age Magazine and deny almost completely that this is a physical arena in which we find
ourselves at present. What am I missing?
The only thing your are missing is to accept paradox. You are seeing all the
structural elements and all the dynamic flux, trying to be objective and evaluate them
from the same perspective as a good, scientifically trained mind would. But the key to
understanding the whole system is to realize one cannot perceive it all from a single
perspective, just as one cannot make the particle model of light work under the same
contexts as the wave model of light. Clearly both are at work, but it requires shifting
one's view to see both sides.
Similarly, half of what happens in the world or in
ourselves can be seen in one point of view, but the other half will appear chaotic or not
appear at all. Only by shifting perspective can we appreciate the other side. As a result,
the gestalt of what we observe will always seem to be a paradox. If we embrace the
paradox, however, and place it in ourselves as an offshoot of our own inability to place
our minds in both a temporal and spatial mode of consideration in the same time/space,
then what we observe becomes both understandable and satisfying. We see the whole system,
not by one standard, but from two perspectives, not all at once, but one half followed by
This is where the serpent eats its own tail. It is
also where the paradox of life, becomes a unity of soul.
Sorry you burned your first book.