More from Nhoj, as per
The Garden of Eden is a pre-cognitive allegory of the arrival of the third floor.
Eliminate the illusions? Damn it man, do you realize what you are suggesting? We must embrace the farce, and make it our own, instead of the other way around. Long Live the Farce!
Here is my science fair entry…
(Note- Can Zen posted this excert of a Joni Mitchell interview. It is the origin of the term nyeep. I had previously used flash or flashy thoughts without sucess. I’m sticking with Joni’s nyeep. -Nh)
“Well, my intuition is more accurate than my intellect. My intuition will tell me - like, first of all the instinct is like a computer chip; it’s like Shakespeare on a pinhead. You get a lot of information very fast - - - nyeep (makes an electronic sound)! Now if you want to expand on that you’d have to go to your intellect to expand it, to tell it, but you would know - nyeep - that fast with instinct a tremendous amount . . . And if someone said, “what are you thinking?” You’d have to now go to intellect to tell it - - so it’s a lot slower. Intellect is a lot slower. You can learn a (snaps finger) . . . And sometimes intellect will tell you . . .well it gets mixed up with image and all. It’s slower and . . . (she thinks . . ) . . . Stupider! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! It’s a good tool, but it’s linear and analytical and, and you know . . . Reason is revered as being, you know . . .the great standard. I think it’s a wonderful tool, but highly over-rated. I think there are other ways that knowledge comes that are clearer and quicker, and they can’t necessarily be explained!”
Ms. Mitchell is talking the talk. Intuitive second floor flashy thoughts. “Shakespeare on the head of a pin”. Nyeep! I get it.
“You’d have to now go to intellect to tell it”, “go to your intellect to expand it”… Up to the third floor to make a sequence or narration. “Intellect is a lot slower” It has to run or playback. “Stupid-er!” Ironically, what she is calling intellect has no intelligence of its own. “It’s a good tool…” A tool for harvesting our intelligence from the nyeeps. “…it’s linear and analytical” It makes sequences that allow for greater analysis. She totally gets the second and third floor.
It’s something about guitar players. Like many activities, learning guitar really makes these two mental operations stand out in contrast. One cannot consciously play guitar and keep time or keep in time. When performance time comes, if you really know your set, consciousness must find something else to do or vanish entirely and leave the work of playing and keeping time to the nyeeps. On the other hand, one cannot unconsciously learn guitar. Each component of playing must be introduced as a narrated instruction. The sequences must be spelled out (“expanded” “told”) before they can be imbedded into nyeeps. How well do you know your part? How well can you talk while playing it?
A good band plays totally from the nyeeps makes an “intersubjective experience” out of keeping time together.
Nyeeps is starting to sound like file folders. Imagine a flashing image of a folder called Shakespeare. It contains, all in one flash of nyeep, your bottomless cup (or head of a pin) of knowledge of Shakespeare. I say flashing because this is an idea that doesn’t have to run to be know on an intui-tive (or second floor) level. Now, if you want to share Shakespeare, you’ll have to open Word (third floor) and run the sequence.
All decisions made by everyone are on the first and second floor. When one begins to think that consciousness is in charge of anything other than the act of sequencing itself, that is the real user illusion.
. . . [I]f our “intangible intuitive sense” could “speak” to us, we would not need a third floor. It flashes to us in tiny narratives. Our intangible intuitive second floor’s sequencing ability is very lim-ited and can be observed mostly in just two formats: Last, now, next… or, three or four beats (nyeeps). Anything other than that is a stretch…. Until you break over into a new sequencing rou-tine upstairs.
[The third floor] is the greatest motivating tool known to sentience. Once the primal levels “see” the rewards at the end of the narratives, our natural survival drives will try to reach them. Even if that means delaying gratification in ways that it can “see” without the narrative. We will choose the narrative path if we understand it to offer greater rewards than the odd impulsively shop-lifted snickers bar.
I think children are innately uncomfortable with the unfamiliar until they are acclimated to it, and that can include racial differences. But these aren’t permanent hard-wired attitudes, at least, not to start with. Such discomfort must eventually be explained by the narrative and often as a permanent explanation. Usually, the body acclimates much more easily than the narrative will allow itself to be modified. Our tendency toward dogma starts with ourselves. Egos are dogmatic and they like to live in world that is, too.
It’s not a false impression. If the long narrative fails to be in control at a local level (a person), than the external tools kick in. Your door, I mean. Then, the jack-booted enforcers of the narrative will engage in acts that are not for the benefit of any human conscious creature, but for the benefit of the mass-narrative. Who are the Brain Police?
We can’t deny that we have narrative to thank for nearly everything around us including posting. I think we should press on with the narrative after first acknowledging that it is a fixable and re-deemable farce and not a perfect and unchanging God-given explanation.
The last time I sat down with someone who was totally honest with me, I wanted to get up and run. I mean honest about everything in their life in an explosion of emotive expression. That kind of honesty must be metered out thoughtfully.
(Note- This is an excerpt of a bit making FUN of BM’s posting style. -Nh)
Here are two homilies about something being inside of something else. How they’re mated is doubly clever.
First, and this is standard issue, just put the words, “Therefore it would follow that…” between them. Remem-ber, the chances of their being even three people out in front of you that can go more than five or six beats without help is remote. They’re not going to follow you. You’re just telling them that it follows. They will only walk away with the punch line and only if it is punchy enough.
Second, and here is the really devious part… The Decoupling Couplet. Put one of these babies in your syllo-gism and it will fly like it had wings! Compact, symmetrical and completely meaningless, it’s a great way to put a couple of short self-contained beats in the middle of a wind-up without distracting from your original lack of intention or content. Who wants to ignore themselves?
Congratulations! You’ve just used one step of logic on a trivial or meaningless topic to emphasize a larger point that isn’t there. Now, you’re locked in. Now, everyone will be convinced that you are being entirely logical because for a fleeting moment, they caught you at it.
Make sure that when you get to the words, “ignore ourselves”, you sound like you are just running out of breath.
Now we a have good starting point. We can build off this in either direction linking to other homilies with a thoughtful pacing of therefores and obviouslies until all the little cards are used up. But we’re not done yet.
Read what you have aloud. Listen to what you sound like. Remember to use tension and release techniques like raising and dropping in pitch or pace. Don’t go too long without either roaring or whispering. Any two Short Answers can be linked together if you make them sound like they do. If you’re really good, I mean Golden, the sound is all they’ll follow.
That attention to delivery keeps the whole business airborne long enough to convince the suckers that they are standing before someone who is telling them The Long Answer. That’s it. Except to make sure that you deliver all this while holding aloft whatever item is locally believed to be where The Long Answer is.
Break up your show with some foot-stomping, hand-clapping cardio-vascular musical interludes to flush out the crowds’ nervous systems and they’ll leave feeling good and thinking you’re the reason why.
Again, congratulations! Your homily-borne morality has been installed, and a festive evening has rebooted the patrons and updated their registries. Society is safe. Go now and rest ye faithful servant.
The problem with all this starts when some educated, urban sophisticates with well-trained narrative abilities start to show up at the tent expecting to find The Long Answer as advertised. Like most who can both hear the delivery and suspend the full content simultaneously, long thinkers naively assume that everyone around them can, too. They are surprised to find an emotional festival of pseudo-intellectual gibberish and servo-concentric tautologies. They too may leave feeling good but will be far more skeptical about why.
(Note- part of my TML review… -Nh)
Sam mentions Benjamin Libet on one page and his book list at the end includes Tor Norretranders’ book, which takes this off on a brief sidebar. Back in ’92, I was perusing a Border’s Outlet and eye-balling the book covers and noticed one with an eyeball staring back at me. It was titled ““The User Illusion- Cutting Consciousness Down to Size”. Gosh! That’s what I’m trying to do. I looked at the table of contents and saw a chapter titled “The Half-Second Delay”. I instantly became very aware of my spine. I remember being completely motionless but suddenly everyone in the store had turned my way as if I had let off an electromagnetic pulse. Perhaps my jaw made a thud when it hit the floor. I bought the book for $4.
The reason this was electric for me is that I was already convinced that there was such a delay to find. The reason I was already convinced is because the manner in which my vision was failing was slowly revealing (subjectively, of course) that what we can know about what comes screaming in through our eyeballs is obviously spread out through time and very compartmentalized. Everything Tor described about Libet’s experiments made perfect sense to me but even Libet’s own explana-tion of the results was simply nuts. Even the counter-evidence of later experiments made sense. In the nearly 20 years hence, I have discovered no one who can give Libet more than a passing shrug, like Sam here, and that could simply be because I am a loony but I am gratified that the idea is in-putted into his brain.
Sam discusses what morality has and can mean to a monolithic model of mentality, which for me, is a dead end from the start.
I think that Sam is talking about an entirely separate creation of a non-faith-based, no, faith irrele-vant ethical system and that is a wonderful idea. Applying that creation to a discussion of moralities of the past or morality in the mind will serve to further alienate Sam and atheism from the general public. I know he hates to hear that, but it has already looked that way from here. To be fair, just being on TV and keeping a cool head does more for all of us than anything Bill or whoever gives him time to say (or not). As always, I agree comfortably with the bits and pieces of his arguments but not the case as a whole.