Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi Mike;
It seems your 60 days are up and none of your predictions came to pass.
Though many may find your system entertaining and amusing, I do not believe it is going to qualify as a scientific endeavor nor do I expect it to replace astrology.
|
I am just posting Dave's comments which I perceive to be on Human Design, the topic of this thread, but they seem to be out of place in the Mathematical Conjecture/Theorem topic of Fractal Dialectics.
To be clear, the Human Design System is a copyright system owned by a rich corporation, so cannot be a science if the originator speaks of theft of "his Voice's" ideas - by law all science is collectively owned. And by esoterics his "revelation" was for everyone, he is just OUR messengerm and the carrier pigeon used by a greater intelligence, so I heard.
Look I like the guy, he is funny, and I certainly feel increasing confidence to be myself and drop the mask of being what others like, and with such improvements, that's OK by me. Now, is it science? It will be. It will be when I've finished with it.
HDS is fascinating and infuriating, it is a vast puzzle for those who like their Rubiks cube as fluid as Salvador Dali's paintings of a watch. It passes the time of day well, and so far as I can tell, appears DISTURBINGLY empirically accurate. Secondly it is a trap - certainly you get sucked into the topic - you find yourself believing, then slap yourself awake and test it, then the tests correlate, ultimately it is a hoot, you just watch your mind tango itself and realise, I am ALIVE! This is IT! So people can experience spiritual awakening merely because logical thinking gets overloaded, and that can be very nice too.
In contrast Fractal Dialectics is mine. It is not legal to patent a scientific system nor a mathematical one, and I did try. I suppose as soon as I explain it I no longer own it therefore. Life. I was tempted to convince Hewlett Packard to fund industrial applications, but went to see Angkor Wat instead and felt really ALIVE!
The link is that Human Design is simpler if you let go of Cartesian ideas - and in that it is closer to Fractal Dialectics, but just as there are many uses of mathematics, there are many many uses of Fractal Dialectics nothing to do with the topic in this thread Human Design.
Fractal Dialectics arose from a method I devised for a new form of audio synthesis from too much time spent editing digital audio, and I thought hold on, these wiggles within wiggles repeat themselves stylistically as well as by standard Fourrier Analysis. So it was spooky to see that Human Design independently uses a similar mathematical structure, characterised by regularity where FD is explicitly irregular to map the true forms and mechanics of nature. However HDS raises the stakes - it claims a single mechanics of consciousness AND material forms and how they are jxutaposed yet remain inertly separate. I personally doubt that regularity is even possible for consciousness, but I have a mathematical system that maps anything, so whoopee! Meanwhile I watch HDS ready to snatch the jewelled crown of public appeal, it is damn clever, it uses BELIEF where I use empiricism, wish I'd thought of that.
The other major difference is that Human Design claims space and time are homogenous on a radial grid from specific points of cognition, that is my interpretation today. Fractal Dialectics makes no assumption that space and time are at all homogenous - the actual bumps are features of whatever analogue landscape you look at form the natural and only real features of that landscape - there is no grid reference whatsoever, only the features described within observations as ranged dialectics - so the peak of Everest and the mid atlantic trench form the natural dialectic range of up and down for the phenomena of the physical earth surface in Fractal Dialectics, and then other extremes map all other ranges and qualities and we have no specific need for any grid, radial nor cartesian.
Human Design assumes a radial grid or roulette wheel for time AND space within this solar system as a fabric where consciousness and material form encounter each other. However these are my personal interpretations of Human Design as it might appear in school text books and so on IF logical analytical minds replaced the bunny wabbits who are currently too high on their own kites to care about the underlying structural maths.
Very useful contribution Dave. Grit in the oyster. I would not dare to share without you taunting me, so now I said it, I see Human Design as a radial cognitive view of space and time. I think. God I wish I could be sure of words the way I play chords on the piano, that is truth, truth truth and words are jus fluff fluff fluff.