The Cosmic Dialogue

All things may end up being describable in terms of a "point" "counterpoint" doctrine.

You do this, I do that. Beginning and End may be responding to one another, however huge that may sound.

Indeed, on Earth, we have all sorts of point/counterpoint situations. Indeed, everything that IS is in a dialogue.

What are we, really, but a dialogue within mother natures boundaries? Does my mind - a naturally evolved phenomenon - not constitute a point - an observer - who relates to a counterpoint - an objectified, external world? We take far too for granted that we can do this. This isn't "just" a capacity we have. To do this involves the coordination of an incalculable number of ontological units - molecules, cells, organs - such that it can give rise to an observer awareness (point) that interfaces with a virtual representation of the interacted with object (counterpoint), which, in the case of the concept of "the divine unity of being", literally means that one part of nature (us) has evolved in such a way that it dialogues with the external "outside" part. Our being in this world is not a coincidence or a vast cosmic mistake, but a decision "we" made, of course, otherwise we wouldn't be here trying to figure out how to make a better world. We seek a larger and more perfect picture. This need - this pursuit for order, wont ever leave us or leave our minds alone until we move forward towards the sign.

When we think within our heads, we don't even notice that our minds are themselves signs, or rather, composed of countless signs that have evolved within us at the various stages of our development: as a fetus (inside the mothers mind-body, which is "inside" a relational environment filled with 'others') as a new-born. Take, for instance, the famed Scottish professor of Psychobiology Colwyn Trevarthen's example of how infant's "cognize":

Infants sense the essential animacy of human movements by “amodal perception” (Michotte, 1962), translating between the senses of their own body and the expressive forms of another person who is seeking communication. Gunilla Preisler (Preisler & Palmer, 1986) has recorded subtle expressive communication between blind infants and their mothers. She filmed 5-month-old Maria, who was born totally blind, “conducting” her mother’s singing (Trevarthen, 1999). Maria is lying on her back while her mother is bottle-feeding her and singing two Swedish baby songs, which the baby knows well. From time to time, baby Maria joins with the music by waving her left hand in graceful undulations. Her dancing hand points up toward her head as her mother’s voice rises in pitch and drops at the wrist at the close of a stanza, making flowing gestures that resemble those of a trained conductor. Accurate measurements of the movements revealed that one several occasions, when there is an important lift of feeling in the melody, the baby’s hand movements precede the changes of the mother’s voice by approximately 300 milliseconds. She and her mother behave exactly like two dancers or improvising jazz musicians, and at key points the baby leads as if she were causing her mother’s song. This exemplifies the human harmony of the embodied spirit with its future imagined in movement (Trevarthen, 1999, 2009).” – Colwyn Trevarthen, Jonathan Delafield-Butt, Biology of Shared Experience and Language Development, in The Infant Mind: Origins of the Social Brain; pg. 171, Guliford, 2013

The relationship is profoundly built out of a primary intersubjectivity in which the sensorimotor patterns of affectively moved bodies synchronize with one another. This basic capacity is what underlies a human beings later ability to socially "connect" through scripts later on.

Trevarthen is rightly revered as a highly astute observer and interpreter of infant behavior, bringing together the facts of evolutionary neurobiology, comparative biology, and human brain-structure, into a singular picture. The evolutionary picture which applies to all animals is action affordances:

“Recent studies of neural activity in monkeys and humans demonstrate that when we move, or imagine moving, we do so with prospective perception of what James Gibson (1997) called the “affordances” for actions among objects in our environment, the form of action being an intentional part of the process of perception (Gallese, 2000). Furthermore, we perceive the actions of others not through rationalistic, top-down processing of complex perceptual information, but in a more simple, eloquent, and intelligent method that reads their motor intention by direct neural resonance.” – Colwyn Trevarthen, Jonathan Delafield-Butt, Biology of Shared Experience and Language Development, in The Infant Mind: Origins of the Social Brain; pg. 184, Guliford, 2013

As adults, living in a hyper-dissociative society, we don't even notice that we are living at the mere "tip" of the pyramid of consciousness (or what is potentially knowable). This is indeed a culture built on babbling. We need to take notice of this and stand in awe of how powerful nature is: despite the stories we tell one another, and how the content of such stories basically contradict the very processes we use to tell the story to begin with, nature repeatedly enacts the same processes over and over again - mediating our delusion within its ordering processes: allowing us to believe in nonsense simply because the 'rules of the game' permit it.

Are we really, though, destined to be alienated? We see two versions of reality. One is dytopian, toxic, and apocalyptic: it's what nihilists want. Their need for 'order' - or coherence - entails wanting destruction, disorder, and incoherence. Is it the snake eating its own tail?

Hollywood has provided countless examples of apocalyptia - or dismal social/ecological futures such as in the walking dead, mad max, Elysium, terminator, etc.

Yet, other views exist. The positive view is always green, and always about accepting. To be "green", contra the perverting import of money, is to recognize what is: much of that which is in nature is green. Green is the wavelength not absorbed by chlorophyll, and so the wavelength that is "sent back" into the semiotic world of signs (via the green wavelength) is picked up by human eyes, and becomes to us, as it is, a living metaphor for "living with", as opposed to against, nature.

We see really cool versions and futures: technology merged with the science of ecology. Natural forms become preferred over idealized fantasies of perfection - cubes, etc. Human ingenuity borne from an alien perspective - technology - can finally be integrated into our own experiment with and modification of natural materials, even at the nano-scale level.

Right now a sort of "democratic process" is occurring. Where do you stand? Do you imagine existence, knowing or being, can exist without a body? Do you like existence, or not? Which future do you hope for? One where all life is respected and honored, or the opposite?

This is a dialogue. We, amongst ourselves. All of us, between ourselves and reality. We are open to two possible directions, life, existence, and beauty, or death, death and death.

The problem is when two sides don't agree on what life, existence, and beauty represent. Welcome to Sun opposite moon.

You mean like Yen and Yang?



All things in due time.

a reply to: Astrocyte

All things may end up being describable in terms of a "point" "counterpoint" doctrine.

Perhaps.

You do this, I do that. Beginning and End may be responding to one another, however huge that may sound.

It use to be called Alpha and Omega, and so on a so forth down mankind's journey.

Indeed, on Earth, we have all sorts of point/counterpoint situations. Indeed, everything that IS is in a dialogue.

I agree that everything does have it's own language. Learning how to speak it, is the road to knowledge. Being able to use that knowledge, tempered with wisdom, can unlock peace on earth. Is mankind ready for that?

nfants sense the essential animacy of human movements by “amodal perception” (Michotte, 1962), translating between the senses of their own body and the expressive forms of another person who is seeking communication. Gunilla Preisler (Preisler & Palmer, 1986) has recorded subtle expressive communication between blind infants and their mothers. She filmed 5-month-old Maria, who was born totally blind, “conducting” her mother’s singing (Trevarthen, 1999). Maria is lying on her back while her mother is bottle-feeding her and singing two Swedish baby songs, which the baby knows well. From time to time, baby Maria joins with the music by waving her left hand in graceful undulations. Her dancing hand points up toward her head as her mother’s voice rises in pitch and drops at the wrist at the close of a stanza, making flowing gestures that resemble those of a trained conductor. Accurate measurements of the movements revealed that one several occasions, when there is an important lift of feeling in the melody, the baby’s hand movements precede the changes of the mother’s voice by approximately 300 milliseconds. She and her mother behave exactly like two dancers or improvising jazz musicians, and at key points the baby leads as if she were causing her mother’s song. This exemplifies the human harmony of the embodied spirit with its future imagined in movement (Trevarthen, 1999, 2009).” – Colwyn Trevarthen, Jonathan Delafield-Butt, Biology of Shared Experience and Language Development, in The Infant Mind: Origins of the Social Brain; pg. 171, Guliford, 2013

Remarkable, is it not? Frequencies and the language involved to understand and manipulate things with them are written in our DNA.

Are we really, though, destined to be alienated? We see two versions of reality. One is dytopian, toxic, and apocalyptic: it's what nihilists want. Their need for 'order' - or coherence - entails wanting destruction, disorder, and incoherence. Is it the snake eating its own tail?

This is where yen and yang explain that question. Have you ever noticed how the symbol of yen and yang almost resembles the perspective of looking straight down a two serpent staff?

Hollywood has provided countless examples of apocalyptia - or dismal social/ecological futures such as in the walking dead, mad max, Elysium, terminator, etc.

Some people are drawn to that, some are not. You know why.

Yet, other views exist. The positive view is always green, and always about accepting. To be "green", contra the perverting import of money, is to recognize what is: much of that which is in nature is green. Green is the wavelength not absorbed by chlorophyll, and so the wavelength that is "sent back" into the semiotic world of signs (via the green wavelength) is picked up by human eyes, and becomes to us, as it is, a living metaphor for "living with", as opposed to against, nature.

Each man has to judge the positive and the negative for himself. Like will always think like like. Positive and Negative....there are those frequencies again.

We see really cool versions and futures: technology merged with the science of ecology. Natural forms become preferred over idealized fantasies of perfection - cubes, etc. Human ingenuity borne from an alien perspective - technology - can finally be integrated into our own experiment with and modification of natural materials, even at the nano-scale level.

Seek and you shall find.

Right now a sort of "democratic process" is occurring. Where do you stand? Do you imagine existence, knowing or being, can exist without a body? Do you like existence, or not? Which future do you hope for? One where all life is respected and honored, or the opposite?

Yes. It can exist without a body. Life had to exist for something to become alive. Becoming alive cannot exist if there is no Life.

Do I like existence? I love it. I get to experience this place in all of it's glory, good and bad. The future I hope for is a future based on peace. A future that forgets about war, and hate, and learns love and kindness. Our hopes and dreams are not really different. Some people just get lost on the wrong path.

This is a dialogue. We, amongst ourselves. All of us, between ourselves and reality. We are open to two possible directions, life, existence, and beauty, or death, death and death.

In order to have life in this existence and reality we must have death also. Why? Because of yen and yang, alpha and omega, and whatever else you want to call it. I call it Life. We have seen remarkable things in this age, but every age has. I believe you are more than capable of understanding what mankind needs to do before moving into the next level of existence. How long do you believe it will take, if at all?

Quite amazing to think about is it not. How wondrous our universe is and how we influence the very being of it all around us,
I was listening to TOOL while reading this so it made it a bit more trippy to think about then it already is.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Where do you stand? Do you imagine existence, knowing or being, can exist without a body? Do you like existence, or not? Which future do you hope for? One where all life is respected and honored, or the opposite?

I stand right here. Firmly planted in reality. Yet I am also able to expand my consciousness and adjust my frequency so I am in tune to things others are barely aware of.
I think we will see a merge occur between an unseen ether and concrete reality. I already see syncing happening between what I'll call entities. Our reality is changing daily.
Everyone should respect life but they don't. They give into negative energies too easily then put the blame on others and not themselves.
Honestly the more I see of materialistic, money hungry, show off types that's when I lose faith. But I've come across more people like myself and my faith is restored, if only for a minute.

I really just want to say that there is more things going on than people can see. I can't "prove" this and I won't argue this. I just know this. When one gets visions one eventually has to relinquish control.

a reply to: obnoxiouschick

Do you think your visions have anything to do with your historical interactions as an organism?

Many people would wonder: is there perhaps a metaphorical transposition occurring during these "visions", which your philosophical or other intellectual interests - with other people - constrain a particular interpretation?

I don't debate that some ethereal semiotic noosphere exists, only that I'd argue that it is arising from a physical body i.e. an ontology of semiotic relations between sign-molecules within an "internal milieu" of some 50-70 trillion cells which "read" molecular signs.

If your interpretation of what you've perceived, in other words, seeks to occlude the relevance of the bodies semiotic structuring, one can only wonder, why? Reason is the vital linchpin. Not knowing the relation between signs of meaning is equivalent to this: sdfsfdgd fsgdfsfd zfdgsddhdfghf xsdfhfgd. Can you read any of this? This is what a false interpretation of reality is like. You don't seek to understand things from the beginning i.e. from your parents, socioeconomic environment, birth, neonatal life, infancy, early childhood, etc. You unfold sequentially in time - not "above", but in your brain, as a function of the relationship of your cells/body to the world around you.

If this very sensible metaphysical framework - evolutionary, developmental, and semiotic - doesn't make sense to you, its because some stubborn egotism - or asymmetry - exists within you that is not only incompatible semantically, but may also evoke a negative response because it entails a moral relationship to the world which your present - likely gnostic - worldview affords you complete "freedom" from.

This is what seems to be happening within the brain-minds of people who fail to recognize or appreciate coherent thought. In being "libertine" in some way, they are accustomed to feelings (meanings/semes) of entitlement to act/do whatever they want, because that is what the metaphysical fairytale they tell themselves lets them believe.

Inducing psychological instability through incoherent/asymmetry inducing behaviors (or meanings) is simply nature being nature: material things and life itself only grows in terms of symmetry. The only things which persist persist because they are profoundly ordered: DNA inside a nucleus inside a cell membrane, protein scaffolds, protein receptors, RNA catalysis, etc; the cell is profoundly ordered, which is to say, measures/constructs itself according to what is needed to maintain a dynamical symmetry within the now. Not only that, but it seems to keep track of the locales in which they grow, hence Von Uexkull's concept of the "umwelt" - or the environment - which corresponds to the organisms "innenwelt" - or its meaning reality. The latter emerges as a "fitting" - like hand and glove, or bone and socket.

My point is: spiritual egotism, or narcissism fueled by a profound experience which can only be ordered through a particular philosophical explanation that was derived from a culture you interacted with and assimilated information from, seems to be a major problem in our world today.

People do not seem to get that the good feelings they get derives from mutual affirmation. We can "affirm" one another's actions, and therefore relieve ourselves (temporally) of any feelings of guilt. This goes to show how vital the recognition process between human beings is for the regulation of affect.

However, the narrative - or what Humans tell one another - is, as I wrote in the OP, basically opposite to the embodied semiotic process which necessitates agreement and some form of synchrony (intentional/conceptual consonance) for the human being to experience goodness. This means that the idea of holding a correct doctrine i.e. Gnosticism, nominalism (things are only real by "naming") anti-realism, moral relativism, etc, is entirely illusory i.e. merely something the ontology of what is real allows as a physically actualisable reality within the symmetry dynamics of human mind-brain self-organization with other human mind-brains.

Ignoring inter-subjective, or interpersonal relations, is no longer justifiable given biosemiotics i.e. the merging of Peircean semiotics with complexity theory, dissipative systems, chaos theory, systems theory, etc.

If you don't understand any of the above, you have essentially come to believe you know what the "truth" is without actually interfacing with competing truth-claims.

a reply to: Astrocyte

My point is: spiritual egotism, or narcissism fueled by a profound experience which can only be ordered through a particular philosophical explanation that was derived from a culture you interacted with and assimilated information from, seems to be a major problem in our world today.

You offering that we rely to much upon external stimuli as a frame of reference to, the problem being is that is the only way to relate. This contrast completely in your opinion with the synchronicities inherent and testable in respect toreality which I relate to most commonly as states of differentiation.

Chaos theory is an interest of mine.

Everything we experience and observe is processed with the mind and while in the common it is a fairly accurate representation based upon what is known to date, incomplete in relation to providing all the informationthat entails the subject of attention et all.

I would consider that as in the case of being able to experience profoundness we address an internal frame of reference that lends to such a definition to internal experience, of what we observe.