The Rheomodic Threat to the Triad of forced Optimisim.

Horse Manure

 Here's a verb: "Inhabiting the Wreckage."

 You can see it in the contrast between Leibniz's "best of all possible worlds" when put beside Voltaire's Candide. Leibniz was blind optimism, a reaffirmation of God's perfection along with his calculus, his binery mathematics and ever widening understandings of our world. Voltaire's Candide with its final reference to a philosophy of hope with its final passage "we must cultivate our garden," a reference to useful work and an examined life, which on first publication was banned by a Front Row who saw blasphemy in a ripping yarn that included rapes, disembowelments and the horrors of the Lisbon earthquake of 1755.

 Mind you a language of verbs would require non-linear thought patterns, an embrace of answerlessness that revealed the empty spectacle of that Triad of Optimisim called The Trinity.

 Voltaire didn't stop with the philosophers. He minutely observed the Grandeur of Kings and what he interpreted as the Heroic Butchery of war rather than the Utility of war.  He saw the Inquisition as downright bungling. The Great Council of Geneva decided that Candide was contrary to "religion and good morals" and they ordered Candide burned. Soon enough the Parliament of Paris followed suit.

 But Volataire knew he was a Back Row boy. He claimed he'd translated Candide from the German. The book had been written by a German called Dr. Ralph, that was all he knew, not his fault. As Samizdat - clandestine, self-published, and underground distribution of state banned literature - Candide sold 30,000 copies in its first year

 

The Basic Inadequacy of Language, Bohm's Holoflux

Butterweed

What is the "Foundry of Being."

Something like it will be found by connecting the Pedagogy of Answerlessness to the Biological Grip of the bat's ability to see at night. Then asking the question: is "Intelligence" actually a "Verb of Survival" rather than a "Noun of the Spectacle."

To get anywhere near an answer we have to move away from the "Front-Row" idea that intelligence is "Knowing the Right Answer" and move toward the "Back-Row" truth that intelligence is the ability to navigate the "Rough Business" of the Unknown in the same way that a bat navigates the dark.

A bat creates a situation. It has a process for the night. To find food, company and success it navigates the wreckage of the dark.

In another way: Life turns the Implicate Energy in the folds of the universe (the verb of language) into the Explicit Act of survival (the noun of language)

The bat's noun is a created situation. A Spectacle. So is ours.

Think Therefore

 I'll give myself credit for having a grip on what Heraclitus in 500 BC referred to as "All is Flux." But I'll not pretend to fully grasp the back row pioneers of physics where since the 1980's we've seen potential for understanding consciousness in Holonomic Theory which places consciousness as an interstitial phenomenon of quantum effects in and between brain cells. 

 At the same time I'm quite content to look for answers beyond the more traditional neuroscience which thinks in terms of patterns of neurons and surrounding chemistry. It's all very much Dutch to me, but I do grasp the difference between quantum, the very metaphysics of meaning, and the orderly process of atoms and molecules reacting to each other which is the science of chemistry.

 I'm tempted to call it a Reciprocal rather than a Reaction. The difference is the nature of the recognition implicit in "reciprocal" and in "reaction." Here a reciprocal recognition is to see both the explicit and implicit of a mountain. This way you see a mountain as in the process of mountain-ing rather than a humble and inanimate Noun.

If we go back to the math and philosophy of Descartes, you'll find a cat, a donkey or a beef cow weren't recognized as processes. These creatures didn't "Think Therefore" and nor did mountains.    

Drops of Experience and Implicate Order

Late Daff

 A cemetery of facts where the beginning justifies the end. In our quest to "kick out the Trinities," become non-linear in our thinking, get down with the verbs, we children of the last generation are going to look at Whitehead and David Bohm.

 We have spent time with Alfred North Whitehead. We have looked at the difference between a Narrative and a Theory? For pedants a narrative has to have a beginning, a middle and an end. A theory is an explanation for why something happens. A theory has to be testable, otherwise it might just as well be a narrative. The criticism brought against both Whitehead is that the metaphysics of his Process Philosophy was more like a narrative than it was anything like a testable theory. In a very real way, the Book of Genesis is a narrative, it's not a theory. Whitehead's metaphysics has been called the Philosophy of Organism, he suggests that reality isn't a bunch of substances and objects, it's not stuff, it's a series of interconnected dynamic processes, it's the "drops of experience" constantly becoming that make up the universe. Whitehead's been praised for doing away with the mind body duality and he's been accused of coming up with a jumble of ill defined, incomprehensible words, such as "actual occasion," "prehension," and "concrescence." In the end the thing to understand is his claim that every actual occasion has a form of subjective experience. In short, for the former Head Boy of Abbey House at Sherborne School in Dorset stuff wasn't noun, it was verb.

 David Bohm was a different fish. His PhD thesis at Berkeley University contributed to solving the math in some of the practical problems confronting the science of building an atom bomb. Because his work was "secret" he had a hell of a job getting his Thesis recognized. He fell foul of the Congressional morons of the Un-American Activities Committee. The most significant Theoretical Physicist of the 20th Century became a Brazilian Citizens, then a British Citizen. He died in Herndon near London, England. His verbs emerged from the unbroken wholeness of Implicate Order, everything folded in everything else, the Universe is a "flowing movement" not  a collection of isolated parts.