this is a fascinating post that came my way,
and thought why not multiple it and give as many
people this experience
:005501bd4307$cdedfcc0$953ca3ce@megiddo>] representing non-specific
cognitive (objective, subjective and liminal) vectors with uniform
volumetric idenitites... the field as imaginal constuction -----Original
Message-----
From: edx <edx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:edx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: Tekton Mantis <lrq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lrq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: OutBox
>
>Be my hand for a moment, and draw this picture for me before your mind.
>
>I am describing the parameters of consciousness, and the instructions I am
>issuing ask you to draw several cube-like entities in the space
surrounding
>your head.
>
>Go ahead, try it. As an exercise in anti-symbology if nothing else.
>
>Try a literal mapping of the topics of conversation. Like, pretend we are
>discussing Meaning, perhaps in the abstract. And rather than Mean, we take
>the pedestrian duty and Describe. Now, we can diverge here, and discuss
the
>difference of Meaning and Description, but how could we Ever, Ever draw
such
>a distinction? So let's draw distinctions our Pencils can recognize.
>
>So let us take a day off and describe Meaning, perhaps in the abstract.
How
>does a Pencil see Meaning? Well, the answer to this follows from the
>question, the Pencil sees the structures by which Meaning is defined, and
>the hand describes the intellect with 3d graphics. It isn't how the Pencil
>Sees that is problematic, it is the question of Seeing with Pencils that
>engages us here, and the cubes I have asked you to draw in the space
around
>your head are the foundation upon which we will be enabled to query this
>method of Vision.
>
>Now look at the picture you have just drawn. I will presume that the boxes
>represent this discussion as well as several other interests of which I
have
>no knowledge whatsoever, so what better test for the analytical technique?
>
>Apply the following technique to your sketches:
>1. Derive the bounding-box of the vague notions you are now entertaining.
>2. Presuming the result is an archetype, what does your head tell you of
>Reality?
>[Let's cheat a little here: your Head tells you, when it contemplates
>archetypes, it tells you what a positional light tells you about the
objects
>in a scene, it tells you what shines back to the Camera, the Chimerical
>Eye. That is, the unique collection of points you call Your Vision is a
>record of the reflections off of Real Things which your Looking records.
>Duh, that is, the Residual Chemicals of Eyesight are the very Map by which
>the Input Stimuli may be boiled unto Veritude. That is, your Memory of
your
>Reading of what you have read thus far (of this discussion) is an index
into
>Database of the Real..}
>{Get it?]
>3. Rectify your interopertations. Do not presume that Meanings follow from
>words or the courses of discussion. Take the raw Light, the reflections
from
>the Boxes you have drawn, and sum these to arrive at a Geometry of
Spacetime
>which you will use in our subsequent explorations.
>
>Now given that you have done the above, and are charged and carrying a
>paradigm of your drawings of Spacetime, and living therewithin, consider
the
>parameters of Vision.
>
>Vision is like a function, an API exposed by Being. More precisely, Vision
>is like an object made available to Seers. You may, having obtained a
Vision
>object, initialize it to a current task, let us say, for example, the
>relation of Spacetime and Meaning, and then you may query the Vision
object,
>and being written by Being, the object will return to you whatever you
ask.
>
>So what would we ask of Vision, given that we have prepared Spacetime with
>our diagrams of Meaning? We would ask that it not fail us, and fall mute
at
>Midnight. That the results of our calls into Being return to us, in neat
>arrays, as pointelated maps of what our eyes perceive, the contours of
>some intersection with Reality.
>
>The contours we map by our Living.
>
>So you have the boxes all about your head, and they serve you as
instruments
>of detection.
>
>Now I leave it to you to answer, detection of what? The Boss's mood, the
>Government's next Policy, the evolutionary development of Literature, some
>kind of Alien antenna, some kind of Intellection Scale? What, I beg you,
>what do the Boxes detect?
>
>
>Now some programmers take the Narrow Way, and render the boxes in
>wire-Frame. Some programmers decorate the nuances in colors. You, Dear
>Reader, and I, dare analyze the spectrum of experience. In terms of the
>boxes we draw about our heads.
>
>Now if we were to collectively design a Picture, all of us together, like
>some Golden Recipe, and we could concatenate the reflections from the
>imaginary boxes we surround ourselves with, what equation would sum our
>individual insights?
>
>Well, manifestly, the equation would derive from the sum of the pictures,
>the boxes.
>
>I know not what to say at this point, except to urge anyone who reads this
>to draw the boxes which orbit their minds, that the Wonder of the ?Work
may
>be realized and that the Tablet may be preserved.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>Please multiply by yourself and transmit...
>edx, 1997
>>>