Trump World

Here’s one I wrote in the mid-1980s about the Jim Jones mass suicide, but have retitled it “Trump World,” which seems even more appropriate.

Mental Relativity Notes | God and Mental Relativity

July 11, 1994

When we carry mental relativity out into the real world, one of its impacts will be on religion, and it will show why it’s not religious. At the same time, when someone asks you about God in mental relativity and asks you are you a god, you say yes! (A quote from “Ghostbusters”)

Seriously, If somebody asks you if there is a God, you say maybe. You say yes and no. Regardless of personal belief, from a Mental Relativity perspective, when we talk about the essence of self-awareness — how do we know that we exist — a lateral concept of whether or not God exists emerges. As soon as we become aware of ourselves, we ask if there is something bigger, if there is something that knows more. The moment we define order by the way we understand things are, we want to know if there is a greater order that describes the chaotic nature of the environment and the universe around us, and indeed there is a greater order. The problem is you can’t get there from here.

We are trapped in our self-awareness meaning we only order things that we are capable of ordering and that means seeing only three dimensions when standing on four, but there are an infinite number of dimensions. The more we see, the more there are, because we create them as we embody them.

You could say that the closest thing we have to a concept of God in mental relativity would be whoever occupies the next dimension. They would stand in the fifth dimension and watch our four. They would not be bound by time. They could leap back and forth and change the state of things altering our current reality. Time becomes an object and it’s no longer something that flows. That means you could change the meaning of something now by changing something that happened earlier. Reality would then never have been the way it is because time is just another building block that would have to be played against the measuring stick of the fifth dimension which would then be the linearity. Something has to be the linearity, the single direction, the vector someplace, and if you don’t put it in the first four and control those, it will be in the fifth.

Someone once said if you had a four-dimensional surgeon, they could do surgery on the inside of the body without breaking the skin. Effectively, they would see the body everyplace that it is at all times, they would see all of our existences. Now look at how chaotic we are if you match us against space and time. If you look at us spatially, you say this is who I am, and in time, who I am here. But if you look at time not as something that is flowing but is at any point only one particular moment, then I am both here and two steps to my left and everywhere in between, and the longer I stay in one place the more intensely I exist.

You can find me in San Diego and in Mexico, and you’ll find me not as I am but in a slightly different state because I am constantly evolving within myself. Those are different fractal levels. If somebody moves across the room and time was seen as one moment, they would leave a vapor trail across the room. Instead of defining them spatially as an embodiment, they would be a streak, and they would exist more firmly where they stay for a longer duration in the space-time continuum. This is why we separate time and space in mental relativity. We don’t run into this paradox because time and space can change independent of each other.

When you take a look at the religious aspect of that and stand back and look at the whole thing, we take a bunch of fibers and turn it into a piece of twine that is one of these little spirals, which is one dimension. We’ve gone so far up that the first dimension is looking at a three-dimensional object. Now we take that and we coil the twine like a slinky while we know that there are spirals wrapping around the twine itself. So we have two spirals, one going laterally along the twine and another in the twine itself. That’s two dimensions. Now we take these two dimensions, this spiral made up of smaller spirals and spiral it into another coil. Now we have something that we can barely picture, but we can hold all of it in our mind. We can see the spirals going laterally at the same time that we see it going along the spiral as a shape at the same time that that makes another spiral. It’s the edges of the capacity of having all of these things going on in our minds at once. Now try to coil it one more time, and try to imagine it. You can’t do it. If you imagine a larger coil coiling the coil that coils the coil, as soon as you do that, you lose track of the first one that goes laterally along the twine. If you try to hold onto the spirals that go laterally along the twine, you’re going to lose going that one step higher to see that big coil that spirals the rest around. This is because that is the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension of processing, not the fourth dimension of existence.

You can look at dimensions in our traditional science as places, but they are only looking at it spatially — here’s this stake we call a dimension, now we’ll move into a higher plane of existence. We’ll go into another volume. They go into all these concepts that are only structural spatially-oriented concepts. However, if you look at processes as objects, then this little spiral is the only thing you can call a process. If you look at a slinky from the end, it looks like a circle, a particle. If you look at it sideways, you see a wave. So we look at photons and we say here’s a particle and here’s a wave. It has these two natures. It is a particle sometimes and a wave other times. It’s a particle and a wave depending on how you look at it. That’s a little closer to it, but what it really is is a spiral going one more dimension than we can perceive it in.

Light is not just a quantum, not just a packet of probabilities. Light is also a qualum. It contains both quantity and quality, so you have both a quantum and qualum aspect. Qualum mechanics is something we’re inventing here. Nobody knows that yet. When we look at light in quantum mechanics, we can look at quantity in two ways. We can describe its mass and we can describe its energy. But if we want to get at qualum mechanics, we have to look at it from a temporal sense, what’s going on in terms of process. When we look at process, we can look at the spiral. We can say this is an ongoing process because it’s not just a projection of repeating item in one dimension. It is now something that is going in your direction, and as you take this you can see in the spiral that if you have a certain length that you assign to it from the beginning of the spiral for maybe six or seven loops, so they end up being spiral and that is a slinky – type spiral, not a flat spiral — one that is actually coiled. Take that coil on the spring and there’s a certain amount of metal in the spring. If you squash it down, it widens out, if you pull it out, it’s going to narrow in. And so there’s a relationship between the breadth of these coils and the length of the coils.

So getting back to our original concept, what would God be, and in mental relativity–can we see there is a God? Well, the fact is that we are on this spiral, and we’re spiraling around, and all we can do is look to the future and to the past and see it as a particle. If we look to the present, and we look to progress, and see it as a wave, but we can’t see it as the spiral itself in real life, because we don’t have that view from all of the spiral; we have to stand out and look at from a 3/4 angle in order to see that. As a result, this thing spirals around while our lives are going around it. What are we circling around, well if you want a God there he is.

God is the force at the center that defines the spiral– how wide, how long. Essentially, we don’t have to have faith, but if you want to see it, you’re going to need it. That is the Tao that cannot be spoken. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, the Tao that defines how wide it is going to be, how it undulates, if it gets wider loops or narrower loops, and how long the whole thing goes. Those are things that we cannot control, they appear to be chaotic to us, the effect is manipulating that. If there is a greater order, that is the only way we can sense it’s impact, is in the chaos of our lives.

So, you don’t sense God working in mental relativity in terms that are ordered to you. You see God working in terms of chaotic aspects of your life. Which of course is where they get the idea of miracles from. A miracle is something that violates order.

If you are killed by a bacteria, it is just as deadly as if you were killed by a car. We cannot hold all that in our minds at the same time. The minute we try to achieve an understanding of the larger spiral, we lose track of the lower spiral. As a result we can only see three dimensions at once, not four, and because of that we have a three-dimension bandwidth of the mind in the sense then that becomes the size of mind constant as three dimensions. And no matter how far we move up in our considerations to a higher fractal levels or frictal levels, or no matter how far down we go to see greater detail, we cannot see any broader a scope than three dimensions.

The Green of Ages

I grew up in the house I’m living in right now. In those days, back in the 1950s, the exterior walls were a crisp, clean white, and the trim was a deep forest green (or perhaps a tiny bit more yellow than that).

Later, it was all covered up with pink aluminum siding in the 1960s. Even later than that, my son, Keith, took off all the siding single-handedly (HUGE job), and then I paid for some painters to repaint the white walls which were still beneath.

Now, that light blue paint is peeling, so Teresa is chipping it off by hand with a putty knife, my grandfather’s old wire brush, and lastly blasting it with the pressure nozzle on the hose because the original paint has become all chalky – it was probably the original paint from when the house was built in 1941!

As you can see, there’s some history in this endeavor. While removing the blue paint, Teresa discovered that a few small patches of the original green trim were still on the metal vent at the peak of the old garage.

I hadn’t see that color since it was all covered up with the siding. All the pictures I have from that era are in black and white, but even though I left this house when I was seven, the green so impressed me at that age that I’ve always yearned to see it again and match it to my memory.

So, today, I finally made my way up the ladder and took a few pictures of those few remaining patches. Most are scraped away, but one small patch looks like an accidental brush stroke that still has the color almost as vibrant as I recall it.

I offer it to you here – colorizing my memory once again to the point I can vividly recall the green wooden screen door on the back of the house – removed so many years ago. And now, as I write this from my recliner couch in the patio that is attached to the back of the house so that this whole part of the backyard is now enclosed, I can embrace that memory once more of the splendid green door on the bright, new white house with the green trim.

The Artistic Paperweight Mélange

This is sort of a cross between a paperweight and an art object I made when I was ten or eleven. It’s very special to me because it has some of my favorite things from that era and other things contributed by long passed family members whom I dearly loved.

How it came to be…

My mom was my Den Mother in Cub Scouts and she always had projects for us all to do, often involving plaster, such as casting molds of the wolf, bear, and lion heads for each rank. So, she always had plaster around.

Now I don’t recall if this was a scout project of hers or just me using some of the copious plaster powder we always had around. Seems like maybe it was supposed to be a paperweight as that meetings project, but I really don’t remember.

No matter, the important thing is that I was getting a little old for marbles, and embedded my favorite boulder marble right in the center. It is completely transparent, like a little crystal ball. One of my friends once told me it was a peery or a purey or some such when we were playing marbles. Didn’t quite hear what he said and was too embarrassed in those days to ask. Not now, mind you. But also, I just looked it up. turns out the “proper” name for such a marble is a “clearie.” Now, more than half a century later, I finally know! My other favorite marbles are in there too, with the swirls.

Around the outside edge are fake pearls from one of my mom’s old necklaces that we used for projects. Also on the edge are plastic beads that snapped together to make necklaces.

Also carefully mushed into the plaster is a mother-of-pearl button I may have gotten from my aunt or grandmother, both of whom sewed.

There are some raised letters made of brass at about 2 O’clock in the picture. I think they belonged to my grandfather, though I’m not sure. I know they were a part of some kind of monogram kit. they were really cool because they were curved with little bars on the top and bottom to fit in a monogram frame – at least as I remember it.

There’s a piece of clear deep red broken glass – you know how kids find things on the street as they explore the neighborhood – really interesting things that when I see them again today I say to myself, “Wow – that’s really neat,” just like I did when I originally found it so many years ago.

Finishing it off is a circular brass holder for something or other, and the top in the center is sprinkled by multi-colored sand-like gravel for a little verve.

I’ve wanted to share this one for a couple weeks, but wanted to put it away after I documented it and wasn’t sure what to do with it. On the one had, I’d love to have it around where I could see it all the time. I had forgotten about it until I opened up this box, but it holds so many memories I’d really like it around.

But we live in Southern California – land of major earthquakes. Right now, aside from a few of the pearls that fell out, it is flawless – no chip, no scratches, and the bottom is smooth and perfect, just as it was when in made it in 1963/64. I really don’t want anything to damage it.

On the other hand, if I pack it carefully in a box, I’ll likely see it only a few more times before I shuffle off to Buffalo, and that is not acceptable either.

So, I’ve settled on putting it in the secret drawer hidden in the top of my dresser where I keep all my other treasures. The bottom of the drawer is flocked so it doesn’t slide, and I have a few soft things around it just in case.

And there you have it, my very special, near perfect, plaster project from my childhood, and that’s my memento for the day.

Mental Relativity Notes | Space, Time, and the Size of Mind Constant

Transcript from one of the tapes I recorded in 1994/1995 while expanding the Mental Relativity theory of narrative psychology I originally developed with Chris Huntley.

July 9, 1994

It occurs to me as we’re working towards the unified field theory we have a description in our model, what makes it unified is that it describes the way linearity relates to relativity. Relativity being holistic in nature, has no linear connection with anything because everything is holistically connected. Whereas in linearity there is no relative nature and the closest you can get is non-linearity, which creates fractals.

When you get fractals, that’s when you’re coming from linearity and creating space. When you’re trying to reach linearity from relativity, from a holism, you create frictals which are the dynamic record of the interaction of order and chaos. In effect, what it’s saying is that space and time, neither of those actually exist in the universe external.

The universe external only has mass and energy and when you look at it from a linear side, you can say that mass and energy then is turned into an appreciation, a perception that we call space and time through a linear process that generates those two non-linear and relativistic appreciations of space and time. But they can both be created out of linearity, requiring that there be no existing space nor existing time in the external universe. Only mass and energy and the interactions between the two create a linearity that generates the non-linear and the relativistic.

When you look at it from the other side, from the internal perspective, you look at the mind per se and say that only space and time exist. There is no such thing as mass and energy, discounting the entire external universe itself. The way that our appreciation of what is mass and what is energy, that there are such things and that they are external to ourselves is a natural process by the interaction of space and time. And when we take space and time through the relativistic, the interaction of the relativistic with the non-linear, we end up creating an approximation of linearity which requires both the point and the vector and that is what creates the appreciation of mass and energy external to ourselves.

So through that notion, clearly it can be seen that from the perspective of the mind, only the mind exists and the universe is a fabrication; from the perspective of the universe, only the universe exists and the mind is a fabrication which leads to the Taoist philosophy of all being nothing and nothing being all. It also leads to the concept of particle and wave because it means that we see something that exists that is a true paradox: from one perspective the second one doesn’t exist, and when we go to the second one, adopt that perspective, the first one doesn’t exist. That is one of those strange mathematical phenomena, strange loops which is making its way into Loop-theory and String-theory and Chaos-theory and in fact, as long as we try to resolve the strange loop, we’re missing the point. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. As soon as we define something, we have actually missed describing what it really is because we cannot describe the paradox as not really existing.

And so what we need to do is describe the paradox in terms of paradox to allow for paradox which is what current mathematical thinking does not allow for. That’s why when we have inverse functions in trigonometry we limit them to one cycle so they will not violate the definition of a function. We must violate the definition of a function in order to have a viable system that describes both sides. In fact from a mental perspective, there can be no such thing as a particle and no such thing as a wave. There has to be something inside, internal that generates a view as a particle when seen from our spatial perspective and as a wave when seen from out temporal perspective. The particle would be the mass and the wave would be the energy.

What we have created in Mental Relativity is such a model whereby we can not hold all of it in our minds at a single time. It is impossible. And when we hold as much as we can from a spatial perspective, we see it as a structure and we see particles. When we hold as much as we can from a temporal perspective we see energy and we see waves. So in fact we do not have any energy or any mass that exists in Mental Relativity, only an appreciation we call energy, an appreciation we call mass when we look at it from one side or the other. But, the paradox itself is now created in our model. That paradox is the internal equivalent of the external concept we call a photon. Externally a photon is the object we see as both being a particle and a wave. In fact it is not a particle and a wave. It is seen as a particle or a wave, but the reality of it is neither particle nor wave but something else of which one spatial slice looks like particles and one temporal slice looks like waves.

The Photon is a quantum. Inside the mind we have the equivalent of the quantum which we call a quallum. And a quallum, as opposed to being a quivering mass of probability externally is an equivalent quivering mass of potentiality inside. We’re dealing with the process equivalence of external quantum theory. And with quallum theory we look at an object called the thoton.

The thoton then is something that can neither be seen solely as space, nor as time — it can either be seen either as space or as time. You can either see it as a structure or you can see it as a mechanism. But whether you’re looking at it as state or process you’re really missing the boat because there’s something inside that is generating both of those views but is really neither of those views. So it is not that it is both space and time, but it is something else other than space and time, sitting at the middle. In fact what it is is Mass-Energy.

Just as externally we see energy and mass and space and time are created inside to project them externally, we create space-time as the space-time continuum. When we look inside and see the thoton at work, and see that it has a spatial side and a temporal side then we have to blend mass and energy and come up with Mass-Energy which is the existence internally of a constant. Space-time, externally generates the constant of the speed of light which is why e=mc squared, – we take that constant times itself, rather than dividing it into the two halves of space and time and seeing that it is really the spatial aspect of light times the temporal aspect of light, or wavelength times frequency–space times time.

When we look at wavelength times frequency, because of the fact that the two are blended together in the external universe, when one goes up the other goes down and in effect we’re just looking at the speed of light regardless of how we measure it spatially or temporally and square it.

Internally we end up with Mass-Energy where it doesn’t really matter if we look at mass going up or energy going down, the two seem tied together. The reason they’re tied together is because mass and energy generate dimension. And the dimensions of the mind that we’re talking about is how many different levels, fractal or frictal we can contain in our minds at one time. All we can actually hold are three, that’s why we see three dimensions and the fourth dimension is one that we can only synthesize. That’s the one that we stand on and we’re trying to figure out what it looks like under our feet when we look at the three dimensions externally.

So inside, since the two are tied together in Mass-Energy, the constant is not the speed of light as it is externally, it is the size of Mind. And as a demonstration of this you can imagine losing track of the fourth thing after you’ve seen the third. These experiments, when you look at how many things you can remember (7 plus or minus 2 single items in short term memory according to psychology) is not dealing with the proper number of dimensions the way dimensions really work. When we talk about creating a quad-helix in Mental Relativity as opposed to a double helix in DNA, we’re not talking about four things that exist in the same moment of space-time, we’re talking about one thing that is applied to the next, then another is applied to the product of those two and another is applied to the product of the third with the first two. So we end up with a progression where one thing is multiplied by another, is multiplied by another, is multiplied by another, and at the end we end up with our complete recursive cycle of going as far as we can before we have looped over the place we were in our original space-time, externally, or mass-energy, internally.

The way this works is by looking at a spiral, and to take the formula for a spiral which is a third dimensional appreciation that when seen from its end appears to be a circle and recursive; when seen from the side appears to be a sine-wave and open. Therefore it creates a particle from one view and a wave form from another. If we take this spiral and we look at it from a three quarter angle we can clearly see that it moves through an extra dimension that it is not sufficient to describe it as either a particle or a wave, in fact it is neither a particle nor wave but is something in between the two that generates those two perspectives. Now if we take that as our essential concept of the spiral and we take the formula for the spiral and multiply it by the formula for a spiral and multiply that by the formula for a spiral, and multiply that by the formula for a spiral we’ve gone through all four dimensions and we end up with something at the end that looks like exactly what we started with at the beginning. In other words, we take a spiral and while it’s spiraling we spiral the spiral, and then we spiral the spiral that spiraled the spiraled, and then we spiral the spiral that spiraled the spiral that spiraled the spiral.

Now we can only go through three dimensions of that which we can follow. And the example is to look at a piece of rope. If we take fibers that are going to make twine, and we see the fibers as creating a spiral, we can clearly see them spiraling along the linearity of the twine. Then if we take that linearity of the twine we’ve created and actually coil it, we can see that there is a spiral moving around the twine and at the same time we’ve created a coil which is another spiral, so there is a spiral within the spiral. Then if we take that spiral we’ve made of a coil and stretch it out like a slinky and then we spiral the entire slinky around, we can see that there’s a spiral on the linearity of the twine, then a spiral that is created by coiling that linearity, and then a spiral when we wrap the entire coil in a spiral fashion. Now, if we try and move one farther dimension and take that coil that’s moving in a spiral of the coil that was made of the twine that has a spiral going along its linearity and spiral that, we cannot hold all that in our mind at the same time. The minute we try to achieve an understanding of the larger spiral we lose track of the lower spiral. As a result, we can only see three dimensions at once, not four. And because of that, we have a three dimension band width of the mind in a sense that that becomes the size of mind constant is three dimensions.

No matter how far we move up in our considerations to look at higher fractal levels or frictal levels, or no matter how far down we go to see greater detail, we can not see any broader of scope than three dimensions of it at a time. But that little box-car moves up and down the track of thought describing the number of ties that our mind covers, which is three dimensions worth.

But we can move up and we can move down; we can move to greater detail, we can move to larger, broader perspective, but we’ll never see more than three dimensions at the same time and that is a psychological–well not exactly a proof, but kind of a proof of concept of the size of mind as appearing to be a constant. Therefore this would be true of those who were exceptional as well as those who were geniuses, it really doesn’t matter, you’re still going to see three dimensions or you can’t be self aware. The real question is how far can you move on the track upward and how far can you move on the track downward before you lose track.

Mental Relativity Notes | Justification and Genetic Memory

Transcript from one of the tapes I recorded in 1994/1995 while expanding the Mental Relativity theory of narrative psychology I originally developed with Chris Huntley.

June 29, 1994

We’ve talked frequently about the concept of justification and trying to get down to first level justification where we are dealing with thought, knowledge, ability and desire directly. In fact, it’s not really getting down to first level justification, because thought, knowledge, ability and desire are the intrinsics that we feel based on our genetic programming, so they can’t truly be accessed consciously.

Now, according to mental relativity theory, genetic programming occurs in the DNA. And it is mean average of all the experiential database of every creature that lived, up until the point that it procreated. In other words, our own genetic code is being altered by our own experience, changing the value of instinct, based upon the experience of the individual. However, the individual is averaged in with everything that came before meaning that we end up with a very heavy base of instinct that’s very hard to change.

Now, I’m sure there is a mechanism for that base of instinct to be balanced against current experience in such a way that experience does have an impact even in one life span of something of a great and catastrophic nature. It’s going to really offset the programming that’s already in there. For example, if someone leads a life which is very close to instinct, there’s not going to be much change in the genetic base. It’s not going to add anything to it, it’s not going to alter it.

However, if one leads a life that’s completely contrary to instinctual base, then in that case, it’s going to alter it considerably more. Still in all the weight is with the instinct, with the genetic code. And the change that occurs in it is not that great in the course of a life span. However, now we get to today’s society. And in today’s society, we have no direct connection with survival. We’ve gotten so many generations away from survival. We don’t have to farm, we don’t have to hunt. We don’t have to defend ourselves in general against wild animals or even against our own kind, because of society.

Now, as a result, all the instincts that we have are no longer applicable, in a very short time, because civilization has been around a lot shorter time than the DNA genetic memory of instinct. So, we find ourselves constantly having thoughts, abilities, knowledge, desire, all of these things that push us in directions that are not appropriate for our current society. Therefore, what we’re doing when we get our justifications in order is not getting down to first level justification, which would be purely operating in response to our genetic code, but rather we are balancing that genetic code, so that it’s completely counter balanced and then we can deal only on the basis of our current experience as individuals in society for making decisions, not just in response at all to the genetic code that drives us — that has been nullified or counterbalanced.

Mental Relativity Note | Peach Trees, Relationships, and Binary Switches

Transcript from one of the tapes I recorded in 1994/1995 while expanding the Mental Relativity theory of narrative psychology I originally developed with Chris Huntley.

June 28, 1994

O.K., I was thinking today of dealing with quads in terms of the forms that life can take. We look easily at the animal and the vegetable but what fills out that quad? Well, everyone always says animal, vegetable or mineral and they are looking at things in terms of three, which means that essentially it gives us the animal life, the vegetable life and chemical compounds. What is the other one? Well, the other one would be that elusive area where they are talking about viruses. Is it alive, is it not alive? What exactly is it?

Essentially, we’re talking about chemical compounds that are essentially little computers, they are little physical computers that re-configure their size, their shape, change and bend themselves around, splice themselves to other ones, mutate. As such, they mimic life, but they are not life as we know it. They are on the other side of that limit line. Two on one side which would be the chemical (or mineral) and viral, and two on the other side which would be plant and animal. So, just another perspective with which to classify things, looking at life is making up a quad of animal, vegetable, mineral and viral.

It’s the 28th of June, at about 10 minutes to 9 in the morning. I had a thought about when we are dealing with loss. I had a dream last night about my peach tree. I planted this tree three years ago, and had great hopes (because I love peaches) of being able to can the peaches and make peach pies, and just enjoy a fresh peach off the tree. That was something of a childhood dream. I always loved orchards and things. So, it goes way back into how much importance I put into having a peach tree. Now, there was a shift because when I planted that tree three years ago, it didn’t really matter which peach tree it was, any peach tree would have done, but I really wanted a peach tree.

So, I planted a tree, and the very first year that it came to bearing fruit, there were only four or five peaches that showed up on it, which was two years ago. And at that time, the dog came out and jumped up and knocked them all off the tree, because the dog liked to play with them, and the dog was still very puppyish. So, I said, O.K., well I’ve lost them this year, but there were only four or five – that’s fine. Well, the next year, I got about twenty peaches on the tree, and I said great. No matter what the dog does this year, the tree’s a little bit bigger, the dog’s a little less playful, more old….I’m going to have these peaches. And the dog didn’t knock them down, but, just as they were starting to get a little bit plump, the little neighborhood girl came over when Mindi was playing with her in the backyard here, while I was not around, and she picked all my peaches off the tree, because they were fun to throw around the yard. I was livid, I was enraged, because now, I had figured after the first year, that it was going to be a process of another year that I had to endure in order to get peaches off of my tree. And I couldn’t even go out and buy another peach tree and plant it and get fruit any earlier, that was the best I could do.

Well, I said O.K., this next year, she’s not going in the backyard all summer long, the dog doesn’t really care anymore, we’ll see what happens. This year, I had about two hundred blossoms that turned into peaches; two hundred peaches on my tree. I think actually the first two years of having them picked off, helped it along, so that it ended up responding saying, “Oh, yeah, well I’ve got to survive, I’ve got to pro-create here, so I’m going to come out with all these peaches,” and in fact, all of those peaches are still there. But, I am so worried about something happening to them, either by birds coming down and devouring them all, or the gardeners coming in and trimming it back, or something. Any kind of chaotic event, that I can’t even imagine…I’ve been so worried that I had a dream about my peach tree last night. And in this dream, I dreamed that the other neighborhood kid, a little boy, who is the brother of the girl who pulled the peaches off, they were having a party over there — a birthday or something at their place which is two doors away. And the little kid came over when nobody was watching, and he pulled off all of my peaches. Now, in this dream, that was it. Once those peaches were pulled off, the tree would never try again, it wouldn’t bear fruit again, because it wasn’t worthwhile. I knew this in my dream.

The sense of loss was absolutely amazing. But, the point is that I went over to confront them at the party in a very nice way because the parents really had no hand in doing this, and the kid was just having fun. So, I went over to confront them at the party, and I wanted to come up with some way of having them compensate me for the loss of my peaches that would make me feel good again, that would make it all O.K. And I couldn’t think of one. At first, I thought, well what if they buy me four or five other trees to make up for it, and I said, well, yeah, but, I could buy four or five other trees, but when I put them in, there’s still going to be a waiting period and a lot of anxiety now that all of the fruit’s going to ruined, even though that’s unlikely. What if they bought me a bunch of peaches. Well, that doesn’t do it either, because I wanted to grow them on my own. What if they just bought me the best peach tree in the whole world from some special place. Well, no, because it’s not any peach tree, it’s this peach tree. And it occurred to me, why is it this peach tree? And how does that compare to when you lose a loved one in a long term relationship? If you have a relationship, and somebody jilts you for somebody else…that’s the same thing. If you have a marriage, and you lose somebody to death, that’s the same thing. Divorce must be very much like that.

In other words, a lot of the things that we are going to have to address, come down to this stupid peach tree. So, why is it that nothing else in the world, no combination of things can make it all right. Well, because the peach tree is not an object, it’s a process. And that process has defined itself uniquely, because it’s not a linear process, it’s a non-linear process. In other words, when you talk about the potholes in the road of life, there’s no way to expect where they are, but they do change the course you’ve taken. And when you look behind you and see that winding course, you can tell that this is familiar ground. In other words, it’s the one true path through chaos that you can actually understand, because you’ve been there. Now, naturally things may come into a different light, and you may put them into a different context. You realize that you were actually snaking your way through a bog, or a swamp instead of a desert. But, it doesn’t change the path you took, because that much remains certain. Now, of course, yes, memory fails, and you’ll look at things incorrectly, but only from an objective standpoint. Subjectively, you look at something, and you remember it exactly the way it was, subjectively. And therefore, even if it changes in your mind daily from what the path was you actually took, it always seems like the path you took.

And you still associate it with those items that you can see as milestones along the way. Now, for me, for this peach tree, it was an ongoing process of all the trials and tribulations which represented the only reason to go forward, the only reason to continue all the motivations I had for wanting a peach tree to begin with. But, they were all centered on nurturing this particular peach tree. Now, this is something that we are going to have to address. I don’t have the answers here, I just have some interesting questions as to why nothing else in the world, no combination of things …everything else taken together, can compensate for such a loss. It takes time for the mind to unwind the justifications. And nothing can balance it.

Here, we get right back into the notion of a binary switch — switching from looking at something and saying, I need it to survive, to saying, No, I can survive without. Looking to something and saying, I’m constantly hurt and nothing will make me happy again, to actually being happy again. And what happens to the hurt? You don’t ever completely lose it. It never is ever removed from you, rather it is merely downgraded continually, and other things become more essential. And yet, at the moment that something strikes that in your memory, it can well back up years later with as much sadness or as much joy as it originally generated. And so, there’s something to do with the relationship between the linearity of process and the interference pattern, holographically.

And just as we’ve been talking about getting into the Fourier equations, I believe his name was George. He worked in the forties and came up with equations that translated wave forms into interference patterns, and interference patterns back into wave forms. Something in those equations is going to give us the key again to the binary switch. Because the binary switch says you flip from state A to state B and process C begins. What’s the D? The D is that interference pattern between structure and dynamics, because there’s going to be that fourth one. But, we look at it as, we take state A, we move it to state B and process C begins. The force that’s applied to switch it from state A to state B, that indeed is D …that’s the interference pattern, that’s aptly named D in this example, because it deals with desire, it deals with that D of the KTAD [Knowledge, Thought, Ability, Desire, grouped together in a “quad”].

Now, the reverse of that, or inverse of that is also true, meaning that you could have state A, could be created, let me see, how do I want to phrase this. You apply a force to state A and it changes to state B and allows a process to go, whereas theoretically, a process could act upon state A, changing it to state B, which actually causes the process D. So, the question as to whether it’s a causal relationship which would be more of a linear way or typical, left-minded way of looking at it is that you apply a force to A, switch it over to B, which then causes C. And the force you apply could be called D, or the other way of looking at it is you apply a force to A, switches it to B, and that allows a process of C to go on, and you still applied force D.

So, the question as to whether something is just opened like a gate is opened, or whether something actually acts as a catalyst to begin something is getting back to the idea of whether it is merely a gravitational type thing, or whether it actually comes into contact, and has a physical reaction between the two. Does a process begin because you lower a resistance to something and allow it to go on, or because you raise the resistance to something else that is an inhibitor, that prevents something from going on. Or, does a process go on because you create a potential, or because you diminish a potential which is going to upset equilibrium. Or because you apply a current, or because you shut off a current, which starts getting to the magnetic effect of things – an electrical attraction. Or because you have power and apply power or you withhold power.

Now, this obviously grows into a pretty big spiral, because if you take the concept of each of these – we’ve looked at a binary state of PRCP or PRCO [Potential, Resistance, Current, Power of Potential, Resistance, Current, Outcome]. When we’ve looked at that binary state on each of those, we can then see that we can create a causal or non-causal situation with each one. Causal is when you apply something and it makes something happen, non-causal is when you withhold something and it happens because of the holism of the system, minus what you’ve taken out. And yet, even that’s a binary state. You see, we begin to use binaries to build quads, and we move backward from that and we can always spiral and spiral and spiral farther backward. But, until we get to the point where we have spiraled backward so far that there is no functional difference between where we are and where we began, we have not completed a formula for the unified field theory.

So, keep in mind those four different universes that we talked about. The existence and negative existence and the left and right minded views of things – the spatial view and the temporal view. Those four make up the essential building blocks we’re going to grow from. That’s gotten us up to 16. We originally only had four- time, space, mass and energy. Mental relativity added thought, knowledge, ability, and desire. Mental relativity split thought, knowledge, ability, and desire. Not by creating four new elements, but by saying the way in which those elements arrange themselves became two different ways, temporal and spatial, giving you left minded and right minded. And so, the first part of the work is to define exactly what happened there mathematically, when we have these different equations that are applied to one and applied to the other.

Let’s see what that translation effect is to go from one to the other. Because one will appear to be a wave form, one will appear to be an interference pattern, in terms of left minded and right minded equations. So, if we have these equations, one wave form, one interference pattern, and can describe them as such, then the Fourier equations should allow us to be able to figure out what kind of mechanism is at work, that translates one to the other, that causes it to shift from one place to the other. And when we do that then we can come up with the mathematics that creates the shift among all of them, by transmuting it.

In other words, the shift that occurs is going to change around the quad. You will go from a K and create a T by applying a potential for example. Or then you will go from a T to an A, you might apply a current. The operation that is going to included to translate from one to the other, is going to be a different operation in which each case – it will probably be a different operation moving in different directions. It will probably be a different operation, moving in left minded Z patterns [through the quad], or right minded circles [around the quad].

But, the point is we have all the building blocks. We have all the pieces now, and back when we were creating Dramatica, one of the big things we were doing is sitting on the floor with all of the names we knew existed, trying to figure out how the elements went together at the bottom of each Class. Rearranging them in all kinds of different patterns. We didn’t know if they were individually arranged, if they were arranged by pairs, if they were rearranged by quads. If they shifted their position all over the 64 or just within a quad or the quads within a set, or what happened. And finally we realized that it was actually rearranging the pairs within the sets that occurred from class to class to class. Now, that rearrangement gives us exactly that feeling of one thing coming out of left field, because it goes from the K class to the A class to the T class and they have this arrangement each of which allows for archetypal characters to be created. However, when we move to the D class and use the same permutation, the last step of the permutation, we end up with archetypal characters not being allowed to be created. They violate that rule of not having the same two elements out of the same quad.

So, obviously we have the process under lock and key; it’s at work, we’ve already created it in a matrix. But, we don’t understand mathematically what’s happening. The point is the processes used to go among those are all the same. The shift that occurs from a K to an A to a D to a T; all of those things no matter which direction you go, is all a logical progression and it makes sense. But, the thing that’s changing that doesn’t make sense, is the way that we are putting confines on it. In other words, if we have three things that work one way, we’ve got one thing that works another way. And we are always going to end up with three one way, and one another way. And because of that, all we have to do is follow the natural progression of going from wherever we are through a second one, a third one and to the fourth one. And when we’ve gone through that progression, which is quite natural, suddenly we find we’ve flipped a binary state somewhere else, that exists automatically.

In other words, there’s no direct connection, no hard material connection between one binary state and the other, because it’s already hardwired in, and de facto, when you go through three of anything and get to the fourth one, the one that comes out of left field, it doesn’t come out of left field when you come to it with the process you’ve been using, but something else in an area you haven’t been looking has changed. And that aspect that has changed is the same on the first three and different on the one that’s changed.

So, in fact, it really hasn’t changed at all. All you’ve done is moved to a place where some new rules apply. And this means that the laws of physics as we know them are not constants at all. They do not apply everywhere, they have to fall apart when you take that final step. It’s not that they fall apart, it’s that something else applies and they don’t. So, moving from class to class to class to class when you take steps in a progression, you end up with that fourth step. Watch the fourth step, it’s a doozy.

The Constitution is a Living Document, NOT a Sacred Document

Someone responded to the post I made the other day suggesting the Supreme Court be expanded to 15 justices in order to ensure that neither political party would be able to drastically shift the court’s philosophy due to the happenstance of several vacancies opening on the court within a single administration.

Here is her comment, followed by my response:

“Too many cooks spoil the broth.

They are not judging politics or feelings. They are judging to see if the laws are Constitutional. If the congress wants to change the constitution they can call a Constitutional convention.”

My response:

If judges were thinking machines instead of people, they would simple parse the constitution and apply it.

But, the constitution contains both denotation and connotation. It represents not only the letter of the law but the intent of the framers.

In fact, that intent is often unclear and must be interpreted. This is due not so much to obscure communication in the document but to conflicts and compromises of the framers themselves.

This is why the constitution makes allowance within its own text to be amended and updated into the future as the nation evolved.

And so, even if you put aside politics and feelings, there is both the binary logic of the constitution and the intuitive interpretation of the intent.

Our political parties are built around different intuitive interpretations: two different beliefs in what the American Ideal is, just as the framers disagreed in that same respect.

Which interpretation is correct? Both? Neither?

Regardless, when a party approves a justice for the Supreme Court, they understand that any competent judge can handle the legal elements of a decision. It is the interpretive philosophy that determines who a party supports to fill a vacant seat.

If this were not true, then one could expect Barrett to make exactly the same decisions as Ginsberg. And one would also assume there were never be any dissenting opinions on the court. And then if would follow that we really only need one justice, since every one of them would agree based on the letter of the law.

But that is not the case. The supreme court is often split and seldom unanimous. And so, despite the desire for a utopian world in which the judges are unbiased, in reality they still must interpret and do so according to their philosophical perspective, which mirrors the party that nominated them.

Having more judges does not make decisions carry any less the weight of law. It matters not if the justices decide 5 to 4, 7 to 2, or 12 to 3. The decision is the decision. So, more cooks do not spoil the broth. If anything, more justices provide more variance within each philosophy that can lead to more considered opinions by the court.

And, with the approach I recommended. It will ensure that the court’s overall philosophy changes more slowly, with changes in society, rather than whiplashing from one philosophy to the other whenever several deaths on the bench occur within a single administration.

Melanie

Stacking the Supreme Court

The supreme court swinging back and forth between conservative and liberal majorities has become too disruptive given the bipolar nature of today’s political landscape.

We could do with a more consistent court that is less prone to political gusts and better represents the prevailing winds of the nation at large.

Though both Democrats and Republicans can benefit from such rapid shifts in the short term, it does not serve the country for radical shifts to either side in the long term, as the court then become unresponsive to gradual changes in the culture at large and serves only to build negative cultural tension by maintaining a shift to the left or right that become increasingly at odds with current mores.

This problem is largely caused by the lifetime appointment of justices, though that is an essential element that conceptually allows them freedom from social and political pressure to rule according to their understanding of the constitution.

But, since the constitution is both a legal document and an inspirational outline, different justices often interpret its meaning in different ways.

When the court is stacked too heavily in one direction or another, then decisions consistently favor only one of those perspectives putting the law of the land at odds with the people of the land and undermining the intent of the founding fathers for a representative government.

Wisely, the founding fathers did not specify the number of supreme court justices in the constitution. It was never their intent to pre-determine how many might be needed.

Historically, the number of justices has both increased and decreased at various times, ranging from 6 when the court was first convened up to 10 during the Civil War and back to 9 in 1869 where it has remained to this day.

Ideally, the number of justices should fluctuate as the political rift in the nation widens or narrows. Fewer justices are needed in times of cultural unity and more judges are needed in time of cultural division so that decisions are not so easily responsive to transient political power but are more reflective of long-term societal evolution.

To that end, I believe it is clear that the current court needs to be enlarged to compensate for the intense disunity of the past few administrations, both Democratic and Republican.

This is essential so that any minority which may, through circumstance, come temporarily to power is not able to bias the court toward its agenda so that the majority will not be properly represented for years or perhaps decades to come.

Democrats should not have the power to force their view on society through momentary power plays and neither should Republicans.

Of late, much has been spoken of “stacking the court.” To Republicans, this means expanding the court and filling the new seats with liberal-leaning justices. To Democrats this means filling the current court with conservative-leaning justices with no new expected openings in sight.

Let me suggest this balanced approach to setting up a supreme court that truly represents the will of the people, even in this time of tension.

The court currently has 6 justices appointed under Republican administrations and 3 appointed under Democratic. Clearly, this is out of balance since both parties have roughly the same number of registrations and need roughly the same number of justices to fully represent the people.

What if the court was expanded to perhaps 15 justices by allowing both parties to choose the nominees so that the court becomes fully balanced between conservative and liberal, save the chief justice who would always be chosen by the party in power when the position opened?

In this way, the current court would add two more justices nominated by Republicans, bringing their representation to 7 (not including the chief justice.

Democrats would nominate four more justices bringing their representation also to 7.

The court would be balanced once more with a very sight bias to the conservative perspective since Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by a Republican administration, though he has proven himself to be a balanced arbitrator in his own right.

We cannot go on as we are, tearing away at each other. A an expanded and balanced Supreme Court would average out the effect of political leanings so that the law of the land would change slowly, along with our changing society, and would never create additional social tension by locking either political agenda in place which currently disenfranchises half the population.

Somebody someday is going to have to do this or our national rift will widen into growing social unrest and threaten to rip apart the fabric of society.

My message to Democrats: If you win the election, don’t stick it to the Republicans and stack the court. Expand the court to balance it.

My message to Republicans: Don’t fight court expansion to hold on to the unbalanced current situation for it will create tension and disrupt society.

My message to Americans. Embrace a balanced expanded court and join together in unity as one people.

That’s my opinion.