The Great Way: Is the only way.

[austintorn@aol.com]

[SteveA]

The metamodel web mind can house the predecessor structure of mind-
--- however the predecessor (paradigm model) (4-space) model will not be able to comprehend logic delivered from the more complex (13-space)(metamodel web topology)
mind.
--- paraphrase ---

2 minds

more simple (first mind) + (sufficient) education -> more complex

Each layer can see more complex (or incompatible) structures portrayed by a single event than the previous (smaller) layer, though it's interesting to consider that there is not necessarily a dependence upon the larger to be constructed by the smaller or visa versa. I'll avoid a lot of detail and simply state that it appears to me that anything witnessed as changing over time exists with observed properties at least one less than those possessed by the observer and as observations are made through longer and longer chains of these, eventually they reach a point at which they can only possess a binary value, but that appears to be a natural consequence of communication over time and doesn't necessarily determine that larger structures are created by smaller ones or visa versa - the smaller structures are only witnessable because the larger ones exist.

As a side comment: the detection of a photon in this sense does not specifically occur anywhere as a single event, propagating its influence through various structures on different scales, and existing within a different context in each, just as two people witnessing the same thing but via different memories have two different experiences.

... a photon does not contain a specific amount of energy. The energy it conveys is related to what observes it and the larger the collection of potential detectors that can receive it ... [snip] ... the more of a "view" each photon conveys
...

How do you write that way?

My mind freezes mid-sentence lost in space some place.

If that's good, then you're entirely welcome ... if otherwise, then I can't take all the credit (so don't blame me! you must already have had the ability to do that ... maybe it's certain types of concepts that trigger it?).

[SB_UK]

I think you illustrate ideas by jumping abstraction layers -
since abstraction layers are arranged orthogonally -
- your sentence construction is satisfying though difficult to read
- sometimes mildly disorientating
as one's mind needs to 'hop' non-linearly up or down the structure which it itself represents -
- in order to understand the text.

A form of communication which develops the more complex (of the two) forms of mind under discussion here.

The basis to formation of nodes by making associative connections within the non-linear space which characterizes the 13-space mind -

... ... ...towards building mind.

~*~

Linear thought hangin offa' ladder -
- Non-linear thought (in contrast) hangin' offa' (textured,layered) geodesic frame -

--- and ---
ask any self-respecting fun-lovin' kid
and
they'll tell you that the dome is wayyy! more fun -

Imagine the possibilities.

[SteveA]

I think you illustrate ideas by jumping abstraction layers -
since abstraction layers are arranged orthogonally -
- your sentence construction is satisfying though difficult to read
- sometimes mildly disorientating
as one's mind needs to 'hop' non-linearly up or down the structure which it itself represents -
- in order to understand the text.

I think I know what you mean and I see it similar to a truth in everything - it just depends upon the context (I often refer to various "perspectives" to emphasize that there is a specific observational context needed to make the observation) and apparently you've found similar structure, if you can find the point I'm referencing.

You made a comment before that appeared to say you aren't always certain you're understanding the thoughts someone else is presented in the same manner they intended or perceived them and that's also been something I've run into - many times a straight literal interpretation of some comments can appear either very "normal" and uninformative or the comments appear unrelated to whatever form of literal interpretation I'm assuming and the comments "make no sense".

In either of these cases, there's really no learning involved - in the first case it fits into your preconceptions and expectations and at most would be a statistical reconfirmation of those. In the other case, the information is something new or novel, but it's disregarded and not utilized or integrated with previous knowledge.

(I snipped out a lot here because my posts tend toward "hugeness" and I don't want to distract the thread)

A form of communication which develops the more complex (of the two) forms of mind under discussion here.

The basis to formation of nodes by making associative connections within the non-linear space which characterizes the 13-space mind -

... ... ...towards building mind.

~*~

Linear thought hangin offa' ladder -
- Non-linear thought (in contrast) hangin' offa' (textured,layered) geodesic frame -

--- and ---
ask any self-respecting fun-lovin' kid
and
they'll tell you that the dome is wayyy! more fun -

Imagine the possibilities.

I think it all boils down to a desire for freedom, but a paradox in that time doesn't (at least currently) allow you to specifically select the forms of that freedom.

If you jump off the timeline, you're not specifically anywhere and wherever it would be would not inherently be related to the past (it would just be starting over) - hence potentially absolute freedom but potentially nothing specific to do with it.

We've got 10+ dimensional physical theories - what we really need is one that just describes the first dimension of time and how the second dimension of will interacts with it (and the two dimensions can't be perfectly orthogonal or they don't connect in the same space).

I think Melanie's comments are related to this in that they're describing some of the first person properties of an infinite timeline - logic doesn't appear able to traverse anything outside points in a single such line - now how do you curl this thing into a second dimension and allow will to rearrange various elements in one timeline into a parallel timeline with different properties (or as you put it, though you added another dimension and I'm not certain of which one it is - moving from a 2-D space into a 3-D sphere).

Notice that memories provide the context to place an event at a specific point in time - if memories are malleable (and it appears they are), then you can effectively hop around on a timeline by altering the memories of where you were when you reached a point - now that would be close to magic, though you'd have to give up something in that you could not retain all memories during the process (then again, it would seem only experiencing a smaller infinity of fulfillment would be peferable to experiencing the entirety of it - which would include all the rest - then again, you'd need to maintain a stable reference of where these events were which included both in order that it could select which ones were preferrable and maybe that's part of the "learning experience", paying a cost for a future return on investment? I'm just thinking out loud ... though there are some interesting correlations with the timeless perspective Melanie appears to be describing)

[melanie]

What does the caterpillar newly turned a butterfly feel?
Although flying is now within its capability, The way is unclear.
Yet, through faith in itself, it gloriously takes off.



no-mind

The flower invites the butterfly with no-mind;
The butterfly visits the flower with no-mind.
The flower opens, the butterfly comes;
The butterfly comes, the flower opens.
I don't know others,
Others don't know me.
By not-knowing we follow nature's course.